Camping
I won’t be around the blogosphere this weekend because we’re camping with the church. We’ve rented a couple of group camp sites on Falls Lake just north of Raleigh. Some of us will be spending Friday and Saturday nights at the camp sites. Some will be spending on Saturday night at the camp sites. Others will be coming during the day on Saturday and/or Sunday. We’re even having our weekly church meeting at the camp site Sunday morning.
This is the fourth (I think) time that we’ve been camping together as a church. We get to spend an entire weekend together: setting up camp together, cooking and eating three meals each day together, hanging out together, sitting around the campfire together singing and talking and telling stories.
I don’t understand why more churches don’t do this together.
By the way, if you’re in the Raleigh area and want to hang out with us, we are in Rolling View park, group campsites number 3 and 4. We’ll start setting up camp sometime early Friday evening, and break camp early Saturday evening. There is currently no charge to enter the park, so you will not have to pay to come visit us.
Thoughts on community development
There was a reason for my two previous posts: “Speaking and Serving” and “Local and Itinerant“. The reason was to get to this post. In this post, I am going to talk about community development – specifically, Christian community development.
We see several Christian communities in the New Testament. Similarly, I think we see patterns for Christian community development. In fact, I suggest that we see four different groups working together to develop a single Christian community.
Itinerant Leadership
In Scripture, Christian community often begins with someone bringing the gospel into an area for the first time. These itinerant workers would move from place to place in order to announce the good news of the kingdom of God. As people became interested in their message, they would gather these people together in order to teach, serve, and help them develop into a Christian community. However, this was not the only reason for itinerant leaders. Often these leaders would return to an area specifically to strengthen a community, to help a community recognize their leaders, or to deal with community problems. But, while these itinerant leaders were very important for community development, they always recognized their role as temporary. They would only stay in an area for a short time (relatively short), either until that community was developing well, or until another community needed them more. These leaders relied on the Spirit of God to tell them when to move on to another location. We see several examples of these itinerant leaders in Scripture: Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, John Mark, Luke, etc.
Trans-Community Relationships
Second, community development was often enhanced through trans-community relationships. (I talked about this briefly in a post called “The trans-congregational church“.) The Christian communities in the New Testament recognized their interdependence on one another, and they developed and maintained relationships with believers in other communities. However, they did not develop these trans-community relationships simply to demonstrate their interdependence. They developed these relationships because they WERE interdependent, and they recognized the necessity of these relationships. In fact, they believed that the Gospel brought them all together into a single community (church), while this community was manifested in various local communities. We can see these trans-community relationships in the way that churches in one city would help churches in another city (i.e. the collection for the church in Jerusalem, or churches in one city sending support to Paul so he can work in another city). We also see trans-community relationships when the church in one city would send someone to another location for a short time. Similarly, we see these trans-community relationships in the way the believers in different churches were encouraged to greet one another (Romans 16, Colossians 4:15) and share correspondence with one another (Colossians 4:16).
Intra-Community Relationships
This is perhaps the result of community development. But, also, the internal relationships with one another within a community demonstrates the extent of community development. Furthermore, with Christian community, these relationships cannot be directed internally (toward one another) only. Christian community also reaches out to those outside the community in order to invite them and welcome them into the community. The Gospel is once again the basis for the relationships (love of God and love for others) as well as an explanation for how God is bringing different people together into one new people. Those within the community recognize that service and love for one another is actually service and love demonstrated to God. This aspect of Christian community development is perhaps the most prevalent in Scripture. For example, the “one another” passages point to this kind of relationship.
Intra-Community Leadership
Finally, intra-community leadership is important for community development. Notice, however, that in Scripture leadership comes after intra-community relationships. The communities are instructed how to recognize or appoint their leaders after living with them and examining their lifestyles. Leadership is important to a Christian community both as a mature member of the community and as a catalyst for further community development. In Scripture, intra-community leaders are recognized based on their maturity and ability to live in a manner worthy of the Gospel. Similarly, they demonstrate that they are worthy to be followed based on their service to the community. As Jesus told his disciples, their leaders should be servants. According to Scripture, recognizing and following community leadership is an important part of community development.
Further thoughts
The first aspect of community development, “Itinerant Leadership”, is a function of those who are gifted for itinerant work. As mentioned previously in this post and a previous post, this is a temporary role within the community, although it may be a permanent role for the leaders. The other three aspects of community development depend upon those who are gifted for local work. Similarly, both speaking and serving are necessary for each community development aspect.
As I look at these four aspects of New Testament community development, I see the church focusing on only one of the aspects: intra-community leadership. In fact, the church is often defined by its leadership. External, itinerant leadership and trans-community relationships are often non-existent, shallow, or even hindered by the church. Churches tend to live as if they are dependent or, perhaps, only interdependent within their own community. This tendency has hampered Christian community development.
Also, we often view community development backwards. “Churches” begin with the leaders – sometimes layers of leadership – before there are any other people involved. Recognizing leadership is no longer a part of community development. Instead, the community is expected to accept the leadership that its given, often with no questions asked. The “leadership” is the church, and the community is expected to form around the leadership.
Finally, when a community does recognize leadership, it often does so based on non-scriptural requirements: education, training, speaking ability, etc. Rarely is maturity or community service considered, primarily because this is unknown. I believe this is another symptom of our top down (backwards) view of Christian community.
So, what do you think? Do you see these four aspects of Christian community development in the New Testament? Am I missing an aspect? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on modern community development? What would you add?
Chick-fil-A and fellowship
We take every opportunity we get to fellowship with the church. Last Wednesday, Matthew, one of our friends, participated in a Guitar Hero tournament put on by the local Chick-fil-A. Unfortunately, Matthew lost in the first round. But, several people showed up to support him – in fact, about 14 people from the church were there.
After Matthew lost, we sat around the tables and talked about our week and ecclesiology, recent travels and worship, work situations and baptism and the Lord’s Supper… just another time to get together and talk about whatever is going on in our lives.
I’ve said before that we take every opportunity to fellowship. It’s true. We honestly love one another and enjoy being around one another. Sometimes we disagree, but we continue to love one another.
I think we’re beginning to understand what it means to be family. We talk to one another about our struggles and our successes. We ask for one another’s advice and listen to one another. We like to spend time together and to serve others together.
So, last week, we got together at Chick-fil-A. Today, we’re planning to get together at a friend’s house to help him do some work on the house. I wonder where we’ll get together next week.
The inadequacy of seminars and conferences
We had a great time at the “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology” seminar last weekend. However, seminars and conferences are inadequate for what the church needs. Why? Because spiritual teaching may include lecture and discussion, but it also must include example. Thus, we learn as much – if not more – from watching someone’s example as we learn from their words.
I “met” Art Mealer online during the week before the seminar. He attended our Saturday sessions and asked some very good questions. Then, he and I emailed back and forth Sunday. In one of his emails, he pointed out exactly why seminars and conferences alone are inadequate. (By the way, his email also explains why a Sunday sermon from someone that we don’t really know if also inadequate.)
I think you’ll enjoy Art’s email below.
—————————————————————
I think the time was well used. The first two segments laid biblical groundwork in a non-confrontational way. Personally, I was most touched by your balance and gentleness on these issues. As to the panel time, I doubt most people knew what questions to ask, and just having your panel share from the heart about experiencing community as a family together was a wonderful way of being the epistles we are meant to be for all of us there. A clear and compelling picture emerged.
But this means of shedding light on who we are as the church is a bit like the “evangelist” who wins someone to Christ and then leaves, at least for some of those attending (what was it, 16 assemblies represented?). Perhaps this is the most important thing I’d like someday to talk to you about. You may already be headed in the direction God has burdened my heart, or you may see something altogether different. So, forgive me for what follows if I am out of turn.
There is a formula for change that states C=D x M x P; Change= Dissatisfaction with the present x Model for the future way of being x Process for getting there. I know this isn’t a biblical thing, but observing the world around us carefully–the world designed by God to reflect His truths and principles–can (if not trusted as “gospel”) give us light (in the way we know gravity works from observing it, not from the bible directly). Let me pose the problem in these terms.
Many Christians experience Dissatisfaction with the isolation of “Church” attendance and those suffocating traditions that do void the commands of us being the church together. Yesterday, you folks presented a good chunk of Model, letting the saints get a glimpse of how things could be if we took a more careful, open look at scripture. While you hinted at Process in the language you used (framing the whole matter under “Developing,” learning, walking in some confusion as things are worked out in every day, messier-than-blackboards life). But “Process” for other assemblies regarding the major transition you present, do you think it adequate to produce change?
In your assembly, isn’t it in seeing the modeling day by day, the close interactions with one another, the personal experiences that forge and reinforce a more biblical way of being together that is the Process through which the Spirit works? It isn’t lecture alone that produces obedience and transformation; it isn’t even learning. It is being shown how to by example that births new behaviors and values. It is being held a mirror by the faithful wounds of brothers and sisters so we can see where we are off balance. It is being in a place where we are safe, accepted, for all of our flaws, that we can let go of defenses and face the fear of taking off masks. The place where we can admit sin and find help. Where we can take root in Him. Outside of being present at the birth of new life, nothing is more precious than seeing another man or woman as they learn to humble themselves under the Spirit in this moment and that, and be transformed bit by bit into an image of the Son, pure love beginning to work in and through them.
The panel spoke of this with tears. But most saints know nothing of this.
I think the patterns we see in scripture about how the church developed and grew and was brought back on track when it got tangled in errors presents a function in the church that was designed to provide an up close Model of how we interact/think of/love one another but especially for that Process element of change. How often when you present this material do you hear, “How do we get from here to there?” Sure, a New Testament, the Holy Spirit, and a yellow Highlighter should, in theory, be enough. But God has invited us (more, given us the unimaginable privilege to serve Him, our fellow saints, and our fellow doomed human family) to participate in His work. I think God not only provided for transformation of the saints within an assembly that is healthy, but also to have a sort of “white blood cell” team to provide a way to heal the body that has fallen sick. It seems to me the NT demonstrates that design in the work of itinerants like Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc. Church planters not only plant new churches. Church planters provide a servant leadership team that comes alongside troubled assemblies and quietly “sets in order the things that are wanting” and “ordains elders” (developing biblical leadership).
What if, for example, it would not be out of character for the Spirit to call one or two or three of the families at Messiah (etc.) and make them available to spend two months or eight months (whatever time it turns out to be), living among another assembly as they help them make the transition from a faulty church attendance model to becoming the family of God together?
The Church or the Organization?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Church or the Organization?” In this post I was beginning to discuss the differences between the church (the people of God) and the ways in which the people organize and structure themselves. There is a difference. I also give one example of the organization becoming more important than the people. I refer to a few other blog posts that you may be interested in reading.
—————————————————————-
The Church or the Organization?
In my previous post, “What does a bishop oversee?“, I suggested that elders/pastors/bishops should focus on the church – that is, the people – instead of any organization formed around or by the church. This was my concluding paragraph:
But, what difference does it make? Why does it matter whether our pastors/elders “oversee” an organization or “are concerned about” the people of God. Well, for me, it makes all the difference in the world. As an elder, I want to know what God requires of me. Does God require me to run the church like a well-oiled machine? Or does He expect me to “look after” and “be concerned about” those believers around me? I believer God’s focus is people… and so, our focus should be people as well. If my focus is on people, I will respond differently than if my focus was on an organization. My priorities will be different if my focus is on people instead of an organization. My time, resources, and effort will be spent differently if my focus is on people instead of an organization.
In the great discussion that followed in the comments, there were some questions about organizations and the church. David Rogers, from “Love Each Stone“, made the following statement:
I agree that a “bishop” should focus more on “overseeing” people than an organization. However, I think we would be hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization.
I do not quote David to point out a disagreement. In fact, I believe that we are probably very close on this issue. Instead, I want to use this statement as a starting point in to further discuss the difference between focusing on people (the church) and focusing on the organization.
First, I do not believe that it is wrong or evil for the church to organize itself for particular purposes. I think we see this in Scripture. For example, as Paul was travelling around the Roman Empire, he travelled with several people. I’m sure there was some type of organization involved. We know that Paul made tents at times in order to provide for himself and his travelling companions (Acts 20:34-35). One person working to provide for himself and others demonstrates some type of organization.
So, organization is not wrong or evil in and of itself. My good friend Theron from “Sharing in the Life” (Who is finally blogging again!), has a great post on organization called “The Role of Organization in a Body of Believers“.
Though we might agree that organizations are not bad, and may even serve a good purpose at times, this does not mean that we will be “hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization”. Unfortunately, in today’s “Church Growth” literature, we find just this: a focus on the organization at the expense of the people involved. Here is one example:
Mark Driscoll is an interesting figure. He is at times accepted and at times excepted by emerging/missional believers. Some praise him and the Mars Hill Church which he started in Seattle, WA. Others claim that he is not truly “emerging” but more accurately reflects “evangelicalism” or the seeker church movement. Similarly, some evangelicals say that Driscoll is emerging, while others (like the Southern Baptist Convention, which appears to be wooing him and his Acts 29 Network) welcome him as a fellow evanglical. In other words, Driscoll somehow represents both the emerging and the evangelical flavors of Christianity – loved by some in both camps and hated by some in both camps.
In his 2006 book Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church, Driscoll describes the phenomenal growth of Mars Hill Church. In one chapter, he explores some of the decisions that he had to make in order for Mars Hill Church to grow from 350 people to 1000 people:
We had to quickly reorganize all of our systems and staff. Our administrative pastor, Eric, left, which we all recognized was God’s call on him. And our worship leader was a great guy and great musician but was unable to coordinate the multiple bands in the three locations, so we let him go. This was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made because he was a very godly man who had worked very hard and would have been fine if the church had not gotten so crazy so quickly, and he and his very sweet wife were both close personal friends of mine. But I needed a worship pastor who could lead multiple bands, coordinate multiple services in multiple locations, and train multiple worship pastors while keeping up with a church that was growing so fast that we had no idea exactly where it was going. [135]
Now, just in case you think that Driscoll may have made the decision to let his close personal friend go because of his concern for other people, please continue reading:
A very wise friend who is a successful business entrepreneur, Jon Phelps, shared an insight with me around this time that was very clarifying. He said that in any growing organization, there are three kinds of people, and only two of them have any long-term future with a growing organization. First, there are people on the rise who demonstrate an uncanny ability to grow with the organization and become vital leaders. Second, there are people who attach themselves to the people on the rise as valuable assistants who rise by being attached to someone on the rise. Third, there are people who neither rise nor attach to anyone who is rising, and they cannot keep up with the growing demands of the organization. These people fall behind, and the organization can either allow their inability to slow down the whole team or release them and move forward without them. This is difficult to do because they are often good people who have been partly responsible for the success of the organization. But the needs of the organizational mission, not an individual in the organization, must continually remain the priority if there is to be continued success. [135]
From what I have read, none of the people who commented would agree with Driscoll’s approach. However, I also do not think that Driscoll is alone in his priorities. There are many who say that the organization should be placed above the people involved.
What Driscoll describes is the exact opposite of my position. The pastors/elders/bishops must focus on the people before the organization. However, we should all admit, even if we do not go to the extreme that Driscoll went to, it is much easier to put the organization above the people. But, according to Scripture, the people should always come first.
Our desire should be to grow the people (edify the body), not to grow the organization – and this includes those “stubborn” people that God has placed in our path. In fact, our purpose should be the growth of the whole body, not just 2/3 of the body. When people begin to be sacrificed in order to further the “organizational mission”, then the organization has the wrong mission. And, when pastors/elders/bishops begin focusing on the organization instead of the people, then they are not acting as the pastors/elders/bishops that Scripture describes.
How much organization is necessary?
According to WordNet, the word “organization” carries a broad range of meanings:
- A group of people who work together
- A structure for arranging or classifying
- The persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something
- The act of organizing a business or an activity related to a business
- An ordered manner; orderliness by virtue of being methodical or well organized
- The activity or result of distributing or disposing persons or things properly or methodically
- The act of forming or establishing something
As I’ve said on this blog many times, whenever two people get together for any reason, there is a type of organization. This type of “organization” is related to the first definition above: “a group of people who work together”.
When it comes to the church, when God’s people get together there is organization (per definition 1 above). The question, however, how much organization is necessary? As my regular readers probably know, I suggest that group of people use as little organization as they can. Why? Because organization and structure tend build on themselves, such that the organization and/or structure becomes the primary factor. In other words, as organization grows uncontrolled, the people can become lost – commodities – resources to be distributed or disposed of (see definition 5 above).
So, how much organization is necessary for the church?
For the last four years, three couples that we know very well have been meeting together. They get together almost every week – usually on Friday, occasionally on Thursday or Saturday, and sometimes not at all. Sometimes, they intentionally invite other people to meet with them. Sometimes people drop in on them unexpectedly. Our family has both been invited to join them on occasion, and dropped in unexpectedly and unannounced on occasion.
Each week, they meet at a different location – usually one of their homes. They have different plans each week. They usually eat together, although different couples provide the food each time. Sometimes they have a full meal together; sometimes just dessert.
In the description above, it is clear that organization is involved. The organization includes when to meet, where to meet, what to do, what to eat, who will cook, etc. But, here’s the thing, there is no overriding organizational plan or model. They make these organizational decisions together based on who is available, what they’re available to do, and when they can do it. They purposefully choose not to set these decisions down in organizational stone because they want to be flexible enough to adapt to the changing needs of the people involved.
If someone can’t get together on Friday at 7:00, they change the time to 8:00, or they change they day to Thursday. The people are more important than the plan or organization.
In a few weeks, we’re planning to begin meeting with a group of people for fellowship, Bible study, meals, etc. We’re planning to meet on Saturday nights at 6:00, and we’re going to alternate meeting locations. We’re planning to study Scripture together. We’re planning to invite other people to join us whenever they can.
We realize that all of this involves organization. But, we also realize that there will be times when Saturday night at 6:00 is not a good meeting time. We realize that there will be times when we have to change meeting locations. We realize that there will be occasions when we need to change the Scripture passage that we’re studying.
The question that we must ask ourselves is how much organization is necessary for this group, and at what point will organization begin harming the group?
We’ve determined that there is something more important than organization: communication. Communication and organization are related, but not equivalent.
I believe, because of the increased ability to communicate today, less and less organization is necessary for the church to function. We will be using telephone, email, facebook, and other methods to communication information about our Saturday evening meetings.
We want only enough organization to help us maintain community, but not as much organization that it begins to hinder community. This may be a fine line.
What do you think? How much organization is necessary? At what point does organization (too much or too little) become dangerous to the church?
The seminar keeps getting better
Less than two weeks away (March 21) from the “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology” seminar, and it keeps getting better. No, not my part of the seminar. But, the other parts of the seminar. Let me explain.
First, if you’re not familiar with the seminar, I’ve written about it in these posts: “Upcoming Seminar: Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology“, “Promoting the Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology seminar“, “A Relational Seminar“, and “What’s in a seminar name?” Also, Dave Black has written about the seminar a few times on his blog (you’ll have to search for the seminar).
Originally, we planned to meet together at a local restaurant Friday night (March 20) before the seminar for dinner. This was going to be a great time to meet people and get to know one another before the seminar itself. This dinner, along with several of us spending the night with host families Friday night, was very important for the relational aspect of the seminar.
But, now I’ve been told that a family has agreed to open their home for us on Friday night. Instead of having dinner at a local restaurant, we will be able to talk together in this family’s living room! They are also providing finger foods so we will be able to eat and talk. This will be a much more relational atmosphere than the restaurant!
As I explained in my previous blog posts about the seminar, the relational aspect is extremely important. In this family’s living room – overlooking a lake, I’ve been told – we’ll be able to talk to one another, get to know one another, learn about our hopes and fears and concerns, and talk about some practical aspects that we will not cover in the seminar. This Friday evening meeting will be foundational to building relationships and to the content of the rest of the seminar.
So, if you can be in the Roxboro, NC area Friday night (March 20), please plan to join us. If you can join us that evening, contact Jason Evans. The host family requested only a certain number of people come Friday night because of the size of their living room and amount of food. See the seminar brochure (here) for Jason’s contact info.
The trans-congregational church
In a recent study concern community development in the New Testament, I came across an article called “The Trans-Congregational Church in the New Testament” by Jefrey Kloha (Concordia Journal 34 no 3, July 2008, 172-190).
In this article, Kloha suggests that the term “ekklesia” was used for local congregations that generally met in houses, and more generally for the church-at-large – the heavenly assembly – the “universal church” – the una sancta. But, Kloha says there is a third usage of the term “ekklesia” in the New Testament, which he calls “the trans-congregational church”. He says this “trans-congregational church” consisted of “several (or many) local congregations conceived of corporately”. (173)
Kloha suggests several examples of “the trans-congregational church” in the New Testament. For example, he says that the “church in Jerusalem” could not have met in one place – even the temple courts – so, they must have met in many locations. However, they were considered a single “church”. Also, Kloha says the singular use of “ekklesia” in Acts 9:31 indicates that the individual congregations of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were considered one church. (Yes, he does discuss the plural variant in this passage, albeit briefly.)
Also, Kloha suggests that the trans-congregational church is demonstrated in the relationships between churches. For example, there is a close connection between the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch. Kloha recalls that Paul told the church in Collosae to read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, indicating a relational connection between the congregations – or multiple congregations – in each city. Paul recognizes the relationships between the various churches in Rome as well (Romans 16).
I think that Kloha has pointed out something that may be missing among the church today. The church has become so exclusive and independent that we often miss the fact that we are united with other brothers and sisters in Christ as well – not only with the ones that meet with us from day-to-day or week-to-week. Kloha offers this concern at the end of his article as well:
By ignoring the NT understanding of the trans-congregational nature of the church we have weakened the bonds of fellowship, mutual concern and support, and unity in doctrine and practice which should inform and indeed define our life together as church. By turning again to the New Testament we might sharpen our understanding of church and apply that understanding to our structure. (191)
I think Kloha has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) pointed to one of the problem – structure. Many churches have structured themselves in a way that precludes trans-congregational relationships.
In the life of our community, we have seen this in action. We often encourage our brothers and sisters to meet with other churches. In fact, our elders have met with other churches. Of course, we have to explain that we are not unhappy with our church, nor are we interested in “joining” their church. We simply want to build relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
When we talk about the possibility of other “church members” or leadership meeting with us to further build relationships, this seems strange and odd to them – like they would be unfaithful to their church or their pastor.
Our view of church has become so exclusive and structured that we have a hard time recognizing our relationship to those in “other churches”. So, I agree with Kloha that we have (for the most part) lost this idea of “the trans-congregational church”.
What do you think? Is it important for believers to have “trans-congregational” relationships? Why or why not?
Community becomes ceremony
In commenting on a passage from Charles Spurgeon (which I quoted in a post called “Spurgeon’s ‘Building the Church’“), Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has made some excellent observations in a post called “On the Lord’s Supper and genuine, Biblical Christian fellowship“. First, read the Spurgeon quote, either on Arthur’s post or mine, then read Arthur’s comment:
That is a far cry from how we break bread with one another today. I think that the problem with the prior post on denying the table to Christians is that we are not talking about the Lord’s Supper in the same frame of reference that the Bible speaks of the Supper. We see the Lord’s Supper, the fellowship, the breaking of bread as being something that is reserved for formal, organized meetings “at churchâ€, on schedule and in the proper format. Nothing could be further from the Bible. We have lost the sense of the Supper being an act of worship, of fellowship, of community among the redeemed. It is now a ceremony, a function, a sacrament. We are poorer as a people for it and the Supper is less meaningful because of it.
Again, this is not to discount the need for and the value of corporate gathering and worship. We have been in fellowship with other believers in a corporate setting every Sunday since we moved, often multiple times on Sundays. But we as the Body of Christ have so modified the idea of Christian fellowship and the breaking of bread and worship from how it appears in the Bible that I fear that we are doing a lot more tradition following than we are Bible following. Especially from those of us who are Reformed, who believe in the inerrancy, perspicuity and sufficiency of the Bible. We, of all people, should seek in the spirit of semper reformanda to constantly test what we believe and what we do with the words of Holy Writ and not let our theology and practice be dictated by tradition or culture or confessions, but instead be guided by the Word of God. What is tragic is that being “Reformed†seems to require greater and greater form and structure. What is ironic is that being “Reformed†is looking less and less like a reformation and more and more like what Christians were trying to reform in the first place.
Are we willing to admit that we’ve replaced community with ceremony? Are we then willing to move beyond ceremony and seek true community in Christ?
Are we a family?
Yesterday, for the second Sunday in a row, I did not meet with the church. A stomach bug decided to visit me beginning Saturday afternoon.
As I was thinking about my friends getting together; talking about their lives; talking about what God is doing; talking about their plans; laughing, crying, hugging, speaking, listening… I missed them. As much as I like singing, I didn’t miss singing. As much as I like to learn, I didn’t miss the teaching. I missed the people.
While I was at home, I watched part of an NCIS marathon. One episode highlights a troubled family: father, mother, daughter, and son. At one point, the daughter makes the following statement to one of the NCIS agents:
We may be four people, but we’re not a family.
I thought about that statement for a long time. I can look back over my life and recognize that I have been part of many groups of people that were not families.
I can also recognize that God has now placed me among people who are family to me. There’s a huge difference between being part of a group of people and being part of a family.
Maybe among the chruch we can start asking ourselves: Are we a family? How are we demonstrating that we’re a family?