If I falter, Lord, who cares?
I feel sorry for “anonymous.” Seriously, I do. She (or he) doesn’t know what it means to live among God’s family when they are truly living as brothers and sisters in Christ.
What am I talking about?
Well, thank you for asking.
Last Sunday, someone requested that we sing the hymn “Just A Closer Walk With Thee.” According to our song book, the song was written by someone named “Anonymous,” who apparently wrote many songs, poems, sayings, etc.
Anyway, I had not sung that song in a long time, so I was paying close attention to the lyrics. (I don’t know about you, but I tend to zone out when I sing a song that’s very familiar…) Everything was going great, until we got to verse three:
In this world of toil and snares,
If I falter, Lord, who cares?
Who but Thee my burden shares?
None but Thee, oh Lord, none but Thee.
So, you see, I feel sorry for Anonymous. When anonymous fails, no one cares but Jesus. If Anonymous lived among brothers and sisters in Christ who were truly living as family with one another, she (or he) would find several who not only cared about her failures, but would even willingly help her bear her burdens. They would love her, forgive her, strengthen her, support her, help her heal.
Oh, don’t misunderstand me… it’s true that Jesus always cares, and he alone is able to truly carry those burdens. However, it’s also true that Jesus often works through other believers to show us his love, concern, correction, and even burden-bearing.
But, apparently, Anonymous doesn’t know anything about that. That’s sad.
We are not created (or newly created, for that matter) to live this type of lonely, isolated existence. We are created to have a relationship with God, but we are also created to have a relationship with one another.
And, God-created, God-honoring relationships include caring for one another and sharing one another’s burdens.
So, I decided to rewrite that third verse:
In this world of toil and snares,
If I falter, Lord, they care!
You – through them – my burden shares!
All with Thee, oh Lord, all with Thee.
The ONE church that Jesus is building
I love Aussie John (from “caesura“). Love him! I wish I could afford to fly to Australia and spend a few days, or weeks, or months talking with him and learning from him. Since he started commenting on this blog a few years ago, he has made it a richer experience for myself and my readers.
Last weekend, he published a post called “Is it possible?” He begins by asking if what we call “Christianity” today is actually the greatest enemy of Christ. Strong words, yes, but perhaps strong words like this are necessary at times.
Towards the end of the post, he touches on a subject that is very dear to my heart: the church. He writes:
The Scriptures do reveal the characteristics of the churches of New Testament times, and the principles by which they functioned, yet we certainly do not have a clear, indelible blueprint according to which churches are to be set up or formed!
With all our sincere desires and efforts to have a “New Testament church”, is it possible that all we are actually achieving is the development of a myriad of other systems, or sects, with differing sets of legalistic rules, traditions, and regulations, sectarian bigotry, and remaining as spiritually lifeless as those we have left behind in the trash-can of our experience of searching for the church that suits our imaginings or tastes.
There is only ONE Church, the one Jesus is building, which is a dynamic living organism, from which rivers of living water flow. Its source is ONLY in the person of Jesus Christ. And built upon the cornerstone of His practice and completed work.
His church is totally dependent on Him through the working of His Holy Spirit in its members.
I’m often asked, “Why do you remain associated with a denomination (and I am) if you believe that denominations tend to divide the church (and I do believe that)?” Why? Because the people who are part of this denomination are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are, therefore, part of the church that Jesus is building.
I’m often asked, “Why do you continue to carry out some of the traditional rituals/practices if you believe that these are not necessary and may hinder spiritual growth?” Why? Because the people who have chosen to continue using these practices are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are, therefore, part of the church that Jesus is building.
I’m often asked, “Wouldn’t it be better to move away from this organization and/or denomination and start with a clean slate and meet in a manner that you think is more like the characteristics of the church that we see in the New Testament?” No, it is better to remain in fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ who are part of the church that Jesus is building.
No, the buildings and systems and hierarchies and programs and activities and rules and confessions and denominations are not the church. But, those people are your brothers and sisters in Christ, and they ARE the church.
There is one church. Separating from our brothers and sisters in Christ – even because we don’t agree with how they understand the church – is not the answer. The answer is living together in the fellowship of the Spirit and in the church that Jesus is building, in spite of our differences.
Thank you, Aussie John, for reminding us of this great truth in Jesus Christ!
Replay: Are you willing to be impacted by others?
In honor of my sixth blogiversary – which I celebrated a few days ago – I’m “replaying” the post “Willing to be impacted by others” which I first published six years ago during the first week of this blog. It’s a short post… I didn’t write as much back then. But, I think the point is very important. Yes, it’s important for us to be willing to get involved in the lives of other people. But, it’s just as important for us to allow other people to be involved in our lives.
—————————
Willing to be impacted by others
A commenter made the following statement at The Interrelational Church:
I think that the problem we encounter is that most people are readily willing to impact others lives, but are not as willing to be impacted by the lives of others.
Can true relationship exist between two people if one or the other refuses to be impacted – changed – by the other person? This is a question that the church must answer. Biblical fellowship is not “shake hands with three people around you.” Instead, biblical fellowship is sharing in each other’s lives… something that cannot happen in two hours on Sunday morning.
Vulnerability… that seems to be key here. Are we willing to allow other people to see us at our worst? Are we willing to allow the Spirit of God to work through other people to affect change in our lives? These two questions are related… Can we have fellowship with one another if we are not willing to impact the other person’s life, and to be impacted by the other person?
The Togetherness of the Gospel
The gospel of Jesus Christ results in a new people of the Spirit. I think that most people would agree with that statement. However, sometimes we miss just how much “togetherness” there is associated with the gospel in Scripture.
For example, I was recently reading through a familiar passage in Ephesians, and I came away from that passage with an every greater appreciation for the fellowship, unity, community, and… well… “togetherness” of the gospel.
It all began when I read this short passage:
For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles — assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Ephesians 3:1-6 ESV)
I originally turned to this passage to think about the “mystery” that Paul said had been revealed to him and to others in his generation. But, when I got the last sentence, I was struck by something unexpected.
You see, “fellow heirs,” “members of the same body,” and “partakers” are three adjectives in Greek, each of which have been prefixed with the conjunction that means something like “together with.” When you look at the sentence in Greek, those three adjectives stand out like rhyming words or capitalized words in English.
Perhaps it would help if we translated the verse in a way that highlighted these parallels: “This mystery is that the Gentiles are heirs together with us, members of body together with us, and partakers of the promise together with us in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”
If I’m right, then Paul is heavily emphasizing the “togetherness” that he says is “in Christ Jesus” and “through the gospel.”
But, the emphasis is even more apparent when we realize that Paul is talking about Gentiles TOGETHER WITH Jews in the grace of God. As he had written just a few paragraphs earlier:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:13-16 ESV)
Enemies have now been reconciled to God and to one another, to live TOGETHER WITH God and one another. If enemies have been reconciled to God and to one another through the gospel, how much more should those who are not enemies share their lives TOGETHER WITH one another?
Paul did not know of an individualist gospel. Of course, I think that’s because Jesus did not know an individualistic gospel either. The good news of Jesus Christ includes salvation for people… a salvation that creates a new people who are known for togetherness.
But, if we’re not know for togetherness…
There are no perfect churches
I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve been part of a conversation about the church, when the other person seeks to end the conversation by saying something like, “Well, there are no perfect churches.”
The point, I assume, is that since there are no perfect churches, then there is no reason to seek to be perfect. Usually, of course, these conversations center around the differences between what I understand about the church and what the other person understands about the church.
The other person, at some point, might admit that there are problems with his or her understanding of the church, but, as is often said, “there are no perfect churches.”
I agree with that statement. Churches are gatherings of people. There are no perfect people, and so there are no perfect churches. I have no problem with that statement. Instead, I’m concerned about what is typically meant by that statement: since there are no perfect churches, then you should not expect us to change, even if we are imperfect.
But, there’s a huge difference between imperfect, and seeking to grow and change and become more like the church that is described in Scripture.
Believe it or not, I’m not surprised when people disagree with me. I’m not taken aback. I don’t separate from people or stop fellowshiping with them because they disagree with me about the church. As long as someone is in Christ, then I accept that person as a brother or sister, and attempt to treat them as such.
But, I think there’s a problem with accepting imperfect churches without seeking to grow and change.
Paul addressed many imperfect churches. He wrote to churches among which there were many different kinds of problems; some with problems understanding who God or Jesus Christ is; some with problems understanding how to respond to the gospel; some with problems understanding the end times; some with problems concerning the church itself.
The only group of believers that he almost separate from were the churches in Galatia. He almost separated himself from them because they were walking away from the gospel. However, he did not separate from them right away, but instead wrote to them to help them understand their error.
For the others, he accepted them as brothers and sisters as they were. He called them saints (holy ones). He called them children of God. He recognize that they were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. In spite of the fact that they were imperfect churches, the accepted them.
But, he did not want them to stay the way they were. He wanted them to grow and mature in their relationship with God and also in their relationships with one another. He knew they would never be a perfect church, but he wanted them to continue growing, changing, and maturing.
I think this should be our view of ourselves as well. We are in Christ, but we are still growing in our understanding of him and what it means to live according to the Spirit that is in us. We are not perfect, but we should be maturing.
In the same we, churches are not perfect either. However, we should be surprised if we are not continually growing and changing and maturing as individuals and as churches.
No, there are no perfect churches. But, there should be no static churches either.
God does not view your local church as distinct from other local churches in your area
So, I made a claim in the title of this post with which some will readily agree and with which some with just as readily disagree: God does not view your local church as distinct from other local churches in your area.
In Scripture, we do see examples of groups of believers meeting together regularly in certain locations. For example, Paul tells the Christians in Rome to greet the church in Prisca and Aquila’ house. (Romans 16:5) He also tells them to greet the brothers and sisters who were with Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, and Hermas (Romans 16:14) and to greet the saints who were with Philologus, Julia, Nereus and Olympas. (Romans 16:15)
It seems clear from these greetings that Paul knew that these believers normally met together in some way. However, this does not mean that these groups of believers were distinct from one another. The very fact that Paul could address one letter to all of these believers and more indicates that he did not view them as distinct but somehow connected with one another.
This connection was not simply some kind of spiritual connection. Even today, people say, “Sure, we’re all part of the same church.” But, then, there is very little – if any – real indication or demonstration of this unity and fellowship. It is a unity in name only.
If you work with another brother or sister in Christ – spend most of your day in the same location as that person – then you are (in reality) part of the same church with them, whether or not the two of you recognize it and live it out and whether or not the two of you are part of the same “local church.” If you live next door to another brother or sister in Christ then you are (in reality) part of the same church with that person, whether or not the two of you recognize it and live it out and whether or not the two of you are part of the same “local church.”
We cannot choose to love, serve, teach, encourage, etc. those who are part of a certain “local church” but not recognize our responsibility and privilege of serving other brothers and sisters who are part of our lives but who may not be part of the same “local church” as us.
In reality, the modern concept of the “local church” – a concept and division of the church that began during the Reformation – is a division among the church that is outside the scope of Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture written specifically about or to the “local church” but the “local church” – as it is understood and practiced today – is not found in Scripture.
So, let’s not let the concept and boundaries set up by modern “local churches” separate us from brothers and sisters in Christ that God brings into our lives. We are responsible for one another in Christ, whether or not we are part of some “local church” organization together.
Different forms of participation
Michael at “2nd man united” is writing a series of posts called “What it means to be organic.” His third post in the series is “Moving Participation From Positions to People.”
In this series, Michael is comparing “mechanical order” to “organic order.” I think this is a helpful comparison, although certainly some will disagree with it. However, it is helpful when we see the differences in the topic being discussed.
For example, all believers think that participation is a good thing. But, often, we are talking about different things when we talk about “participation.” Michael writes:
In mechanical order, people are invited to participate by filling in positions in a master plan. For example, setting up ministry programs and asking for volunteers to serve in the ministries. In this case, leaders invite people to participate in ways that serve the plan. They are then inserted into the manufacturing process (program) with the intention that they are a piece that can help bring about the predetermined desired outcome…
In organic order, individuals are invited to participate as themselves for the good of the group as a whole. The mission (or ministry) emerges from how the individual participants grow together as a community and interact with the world around them given their competencies (spiritual gifts, natural talents, etc.). To be truly organic, community must take precedence above mission. This is the only way that the priority of the health of the individuals is kept front and center. If mission comes first, you sacrifice the health of the individuals for what they can do for the mission. Instead, the mission comes out of the improved health of the individuals. Plus, God’s eternal purpose is wrapped up in community. Community is the prime product. Mission is a by-product. (emphasis in original)
The difference, as Michael points out, is the form of participation. Are people required to participate with one another in set forms or methods that have been already set up as part of a plan? Or, are they free to participate as they are – that is, as God has gifted and prepared them?
Yes, in the “organic” form of participation, there is an increased likelihood of messiness. In the “mechanical” form of participation, things flow more smoothly.
Of course, I’m not convinced that “more smoothly” is better than “messier,” but that would probably be a good topic for another day.
Don’t misunderstand me… God can and does work through both mechanical participation and organic participation. However, I believe that organic participation is healthier for the church.
How have you seen God work through both mechanical and organic participation? Which form do you think is healthier for the church? Why?
It’s not that you’re corrupt; it’s that they don’t know you
Have you heard any complaints about “this generation” lately? Have you heard that they have little or no respect for authority? Have you heard that they have problems with committing to church? Haven’t heard that? Well, I have. And, I hear it often.
But, there’s a problem with these complaints. They’re not true. Seriously. They’re not true.
This generation (whichever generation the author, blogger, pastor, etc. may be talking about) does respect authority, and they do not have a problem committing.
However, they have very little respect or commitment for nameless, faceless entities. Over the last 20 years or so, people have grown up watching commercials telling them that product X is the best, fastest, easiest, cheapest, etc. They knew these claims were not true. They heard politicians telling them that they had their best interests in mind. They knew these sound bites were not true. They heard CEO’s telling them that the employees were the company’s most important asset. They knew this was not true.
How did they know these things were not true? Because it didn’t prove to be true. The products failed. The politicians lied. The CEO laid off half the work force and took a huge bonus.
All of these people (product spokespeople, politicians, and CEO’s) all had something in common. The people did not really know them. They knew the names and faces, but they didn’t know the people themselves.
They did not truly know the actor pitching the product, or the congressman/senator making promises, or the CEO collecting bonuses. And, they learned that they could not trust someone just because they were in a certain position of influence. They learned that just because a person said something, it did not make it true. In fact, they learned that the more someone said something and the more force that was used to convince people that it was true, the more likely the it was not true.
So, where does that put the church in the view of “this generation”? Well, it depends.
Do the people actually know the person (people) who are speaking? I’m not asking if they know what the person (people) say about himself, herself, or themselves. I’m not asking if they know what the person says. I mean, do they actually KNOW that person. If not, then to “this generation” the person speaking is the same as the product spokesperson, the company’s CEO, the politician, the college president, etc.
If the people do not know you, they will probably not trust you. This is different than previous generations to whom people in positions of authority were automatically assumed to be trustworthy. “This generation” has learned otherwise; people are not trustworthy simply because of their position or because they say that they are trustworthy.
This does not mean that you are corrupt. It does not mean that you are lying. It does not mean that you are not authentic in what you say about yourself. It means that they do not KNOW any of this about you, because they will not believe it simply because you say it’s so.
So, do you want people in “this generation” to trust you? Do you want to be able to influence them? Do you want them to be committed to fellowship and community with you? Then, you must share your life with them… actually share your life.
The times when you stand above them and speak, teach, preach, sermonize alone will not count in their eyes.
Does your context not allow for any other kind of sharing lives together? Well, you have a problem, don’t you?
We are intricately connected with all members of Christ’s body
Bobby at “Deconstructing Neverland” wrote a wonderful post about our community and fellowship in Christ. The post is called “Quarantine and Community.”
According to his post, Bobby’s family has been going through a time of “quarantine” because of sickness running through the family. This time of isolation helped him think about community in Christ.
At one point, Bobby writes this:
The Body of Christ is not confined to the membership roles of those who gather at a particular location. Even if that is how a person thinks of it, it is not true. We are all inter-connected with one another and we all receive life and instruction from the same source, the Head. My eyes have been opened to the beauty of being a member of the Body of Christ. Even as someone who has abandoned traditional church services and doesn’t have his name on any membership roles, I am still intricately connected with, necessary to and dependent upon the other members of Christ body. As long as I remain attached to Christ the Head I also remain attached to all those who are attached to Him as well. Even if I’m not attached to a pew every Sunday. The fullness of Christ lives in each one of us and in Him we all live and move and have our being…together. We can be separated by wide areas of geography and still be one and share the same life while two others can sit side by side but feel miles apart inside. It all depends on the level at which we abide in Him.
This touches on many of the issues that I’ve been thinking about and writing about lately. Let me make it more specific: Bobby is not officially a member of any “traditional church service,” but – through Christ – he is a member together with those who are part of traditional church services.
I agree that we are intricately connected with everyone who is in Christ, even those that we will never meet. However, like a chain link fence, we are more closely and obviously dependent upon those that are closest to us – those who we interact with as we live our lives together.
If we refuse fellowship with someone who is in Christ and who is also in our lives, then we are refusing to be a channel for Christ and refusing to heed a channel that Christ can use. We are, in effect, hindering the maturity of Christ’s body.
So, how can we practically foster and demonstrate these intricate connections that we have with one another through Christ, even when we are NOT connected to one another through official church membership?
You can and must become a leader in church unity… but it may come at a cost
Last week, Ed Stetzer published an interview with Jason Dukes, the author of a new book called Beyond My Church: Thinking and Living So That the World Might Know. (See his post “Beyond My church: A Book Interview with Jason C. Dukes.”)
I like the idea of the book – encouraging followers of Jesus Christ to look beyond the fences created by their “local church” in order to interact with the church of God that is all around them.
In the second question/answer of the interview, Ed and Jason touch on a topic that (I believe) is one of the main hindrances to actualized (real, relational) unity among the body of Christ:
Is this a book that only pastors and paid church leaders can appreciate, or can every follower of Jesus begin to think and live beyond their church, and if so, how?
It is absolutely a book for every follower of Jesus. Two reasons why. First, unfortunately, many pastors live either under the pressure to “grow their church,” which is an extremely anti-biblical thought, or they live stifled by their own insecurities, which creates a sense of competition and distrust between local leaders. Often times, our distinctive understandings of secondary theological ideals hinder pastors’ connection, as well. Thus, it is imperative that every follower of Jesus lead out in cultivating for unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city, therefore encouraging their pastors to emphasize and prioritize for it.
This can be done in the very ways that they cultivate for “beyond me” living in their families, among their neighbors, in the marketplace, among leaders in the city where they live, and even in the ways that they think of the church in the city. There is actually one chapter per each of those topics in the book, offering suggestions for how “beyond MY church” thinking and living can be cultivated. We need a vision for “on earth as it is in heaven” in the communities where we live, not a vision for succeeding as individual local churches. And followers of Jesus who make up those local church families can be key catalysts in enabling and allowing their leaders to feel secure to think and live “beyond MY church.”
Yes, I agree completely that “it is imperative that every follower of Jesus lead out in cultivating for unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city.”
However, we must admit that most modern church organization are leader-centric (pastor-centric), even if they do not want to be. So, the influence and desires of the leader(s) carries much weight among the believers who see themselves as part of that “local church.”
What would happen if these followers of Jesus Christ “led out in cultivating unity around mission among followers of Jesus in a city”? Well, they may start giving to needs other than their local church budget. They may start meeting and/or serving with others at times when their local church meets. They may start hanging out with and fellowshiping with people who disagree with their local church statement of faith or covenant.
What is “the pastor” going to say about that?
While I know there are exception, I’ve seen many, many examples of church leaders who are cheerleaders for unity among the body of Christ, as long as it doesn’t affect their own “local church.”