Missional Christians in 360 AD
Most people are familiar with Emperor Constantine, the Roman Emperor who legitimized Christianity and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, not as many people are familiar with one of his successors: Julian the Apostate. Flavius Claudius Iulianus was born around 331 AD to the half-brother of Emperor Constantine I. He died on June 26, 363 AD during a battle.
Julian is known as “the Apostate” because he rejected Christianity and attempted to return the Roman Empire to the worship of the pagan gods – which he called “the Hellenic faith”. We only know Julian’s writing “Against the Galileans” because parts were preserved in Cyril of Alexandria’s rebuttal.
What did Julian say about the Christians in the 360’s? Well, we can learn much about those Christians (“Galileans”) by observing Julian’s rebuke of the pagan priests and practitioners:
Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians’] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the pagan gods]?… For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.
Have we come full circle? It seems that the church is willing to allow the state [pagans] to care for the poor – even poor Christians.
Interestingly, this pagan emperor recognized that it was the lifestyle of the followers of Jesus that was attracting people away from paganism – and, primarily that lifestyle was a lifestyle of service and concern and care for others. I wonder if that same kind of lifestyle would have the same effect today.
Where are you taking Jesus?
This was posted at “Chronicles of the Way” in a post called “Jesus in the school“. This doesn’t require any commentary:
Ssshhhh! Don’t tell anybody, but Jesus is going to Gra-Mar Middle School each day. The government and the far-left have been trying to keep him out since the late 60s and I’ve managed to sneak him in every day this year. Most of the time he shows up in the most normal of circumstances: in the hallways between classes, in the teachers’ lunchroom, and even in the office every once in a while–he picks up my mail. So far, nobody has objected to him being here. I hope no one ever does. I really hope everyone sees him, though. What a shame for me if no one ever noticed him. After all, it is I who bring him every day. Yep. He rides with me into the school every day. I’m pretty sure he hates the traffic like I do, but we both know that its worth it to minister to these kids who so desperately need it. Jesus handled the discipline of four kids today. I suspect it was very different than the ways some of the teachers or parents discipline these kids. There was no yelling, no sarcasm, no over-the-top punishment. I’m glad he was there. If it had just been me, I would have jerked a knot in their heads. There are approximately 165 more days of school left this year. Unless I’m out of town or sick, I plan on bringing him with me every one of those 165 days. I cannot wait to see what Jesus does tomorrow!
So, where are you taking Jesus?
Missional Anabaptists
Dave Black has published the sixth part of his series on the Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 6)“. These articles are getting better and better, and they motivate me to want to learn more about the Anabaptists. This article concerns the Anabaptists’ views of the Great Commission. He says:
In speaking of the missionary heart of the Anabaptists my highest hope is that it might help us to implement biblical principles in our own lives and fellowships. I believe that if we are open to a fresh leading of the Holy Spirit, at whatever cost to our present way of living, we cannot help but become more missional in the way we think and act. The purpose of the Anabaptist movement was more than to recall Christians to their biblical roots. At every point the Anabaptists sought to correct the notion of their contemporaries that the Great Commission had been fulfilled by Christ’s original apostles. It was this emphasis that explains the contempt, and even disgust, that some of the magisterial Reformers felt for the missionary program of the Dissenters.
Our own situation is much like that of the erudite Anabaptists. Today we have to strip off the false notion that missions is only for professionals. Jesus is asking His followers today to take seriously not just the gathering but the going forth. What we must learn to say to the world is: “Here we are. We are willing to make any sacrifice to see that you know Jesus. We are not asking you to come to church with us. We love you right where you are. We love you no matter what you do to us. If we have to build a hut next to you for the rest of time just to witness to the love and grace of the Lord Jesus, we are going to make that effort. We’re not going to take you out of your environment or make you a part of an institution just to keep the institution going.â€
I love this last part. Are we willing to go where unbelievers are, not just to hit and run, but live among them? This is true missional living… and I would say, this is true “follower of Christ” living.
Beyond the discussion of the Anabaptists’ view of the Great Commission, Dave also discusses the Anabaptists’ view of the church. Why? Because what we think about the church will affect what we think about the Great Commission. So, what did the Anabaptists think about the church:
For the Anabaptists, the church meant a great deal. It was a community consisting of those who had a vital relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior. It was the brotherhood of the redeemed, purchased by Christ’s spilled blood. It was the fellowship of the regenerated who as “living stones†were being built up into a holy temple. It was the body of Christ-centered sharing where each bore the other’s burdens and thus fulfilled the law of Christ. The church was all of this to the Anabaptists. But it was much more than this. The church was the community of those who not only worshiped God and learned of Christ but who witnessed and served, proclaiming in word and deed the Lord Jesus Christ and His full and free salvation to anyone who would listen. For the Anabaptists the biblical church was a Great Commission church – witnessing, evangelizing, and ministering in love both to each other and to the outside world. For them the whole of life was to be one of service and sacrifice.
I love this description of the church. I don’t think I’ve read enough about and by the Anabaptists. How about you?
The Gospel in message and mission…
When John the Baptist was in prison, he heard about the many works of Jesus Christ. He sent his followers to Jesus to ask an important question:
Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Matthew 11:2-6 ESV)
According to Jesus, John should recognize who Jesus is both by his message and also by his mission. In the gospels, the message of the kingdom is not separate from the mission of the kingdom, and vice versa. Thus Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom through words and through works. A gospel that is presented through words only is not found in Scripture; and, similarly, a gospel that is presented through works only is not found in Scripture. In Scripture, the gospel is proclaimed through message (words) and mission (works), and today the gospel should be proclaimed in both message and mission.
I recognize that in Scripture we do not find a dichotomy between message and mission. Instead, we find that the message includes the mission and the mission includes the message. However, I also recognize that we tend to separate these two today. So, for this blog post, when I mentioned “message”, I’m talking about the words of the gospel, and when I mention “mission”, I’m talking about the loving, merciful, justice-filled work that accompanies the gospel.
A couple of years ago, a good friend introduced me to John M. Perkins; however, I had not read anything that he had written until a few days ago. I had the opportunity to skim through his book Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development. Now, as far as I can tell, this book is not about developing Christian community. Instead, this book is about Christian involvement in developing community. These are different, but both are important.
In one chapter – “The Marks of an Authentic Church” – Mr. Perkins describes how the church’s message and mission should work together to the benefit of the surrounding community. He writes against the various forms of liberation theology and supports a “theology of reconciliation” based on 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. Consider these paragraphs:
We can begin to understand this alternative theology of reconciliation by defining the church. The church, as we all know, is the Body of Christ. It is the assembly of believers called out by God to be his people. These people see themselves as the replacements, the agents, for Jesus of Nazareth here on earth, in their own neighborhoods and communities. They are committed to being those agents in a specific neighborhood, in a return to the parish concept. Christian community development, then, is a return to the function God intended for the church, to be his replacement, his pinch hitter. This is a church that insists through its words and its actions that dehumanization in every form is blasphemy against God. We, the people of God, are called to live out our lives in our parishes in a way that reveals and affirms the dignity of those dehumanized by society.
Instead, we have turned the church into an institution that serves us instead of God. In fact, the church that we are most committed to is the church that will meet most of our personal and family needs. It has become popular for both black and white Christians to shop around for a church just as we shop around for food or clothing, and the join the one that offers the most “stuff.” But our institutions are valuable in God’s eyes only when they put flesh on the gospel. The gospel then becomes the love of God made visible, able to be touched and felt through physical agents of his kingdom. Only then is the gospel the good news to the poor that Jesus proclaimed. Living out the gospel means bringing the good news of God’s love to people who are in need, demonstrating to them the love of Jesus and introducing them to the eternal life found only in him.
When I refer to eternal life I don’t only mean the hereafter, but eternal life that begins here on earth and continues after. Jesus came to bring life, but also a certain quality of life. Jesus said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Our task, then, is to enable people to have the abundant life that God desires for them. Abundant life surely begins with salvation, but it also includes having basic needs met and dignity affirmed.
In short, living the gospel means desiring for your neighbor and your neighbor’s family that which you desire for yourself and your family. Living the gospel means bettering the quality of other people’s lives–spiritually, physically, socially, emotionally–as you better your own. [43-44]
Mr. Perkins writes about a gospel that includes both proclamation by words and proclamation by works. He does not relegate the gospel to social action, nor does he relegate the gospel to verbal affirmation. And, perhaps more importantly, he recognizes that the church – the people of God – are the agents that proclaim (preach) the gospel in both message and also mission.
I am learning what it means to proclaim the gospel in message and mission. I’ve talked about this before in a post called “Justice, Kindness, Mercy…” To be honest, this is sometimes difficult for me. I love the church, and I love to see the church working to build up other believers instead of to tear down other believers. But, even if the church is working together to edify itself – which is important – this is only part of the church’s mission. The church is also supposed to be salt and light in the world through both its words and its works.
God is teaching me first by changing my heart. Margaret and I have talked about and prayed about different ways to influence our community for Christ. We have started with our neighborhood by trying to get involved in the lives of our neighbors in order to learn how we can serve them. But, for the most part, our neighbors are not “the least of these”. We are still praying that God would teach us how and where he wants to use us in this way.
Returning to Perkins, he listed seven attributes that the body of Christ should demonstrate as we carry out our message and mission [45-53]:
- The authentic church absorbs pain.
- The authentic community of believers is also called to proclaim hope in a despairing world.
- An authentic church should point to God’s authority.
- The authentic church brings people together.
- The authentic church spends lavishly on the needy.
- The authentic church reflects God’s character.
- The authentic community of faith protects the vulnerable.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not there yet. I recognize these attributes of believers and the church as described in Scripture, but sometimes I think we are too involved with ourselves and our pet projects and theological positions to be as concerned about others as God is. May God change our hearts.
Perkins said, “The gospel then becomes the love of God made visible, able to be touched and felt through physical agents of his kingdom.” This is the kind of gospel that I want to proclaim in message and in mission.
Community and Mission…
A few days ago, I spoke with a friend who I had not spoken with in many years. God used him as a mentor for me over ten years ago. Since then, we have both moved several times. When I talked to this friend, I found out that he was working as a chaplain in a branch of the armed forces of the United States. (I prefer to keep this general, so I am going to leave out many of the specifics.) I told him about my interest in the church as a community of people instead of as an organization. I am going to paraphrase his response. I hope this encourages you as much as it did me:
As a chaplain, one of the most important things that I teach people is that this branch of the military is a community. But, we cannot be a community that only knows about one another’s life. We must be a community that is involved in one another’s life. If a fellow service member is struggling or having problems, we cannot let that continue without addressing the problems. The mission of this branch of the military is at stake. We must be willing to get involved in each other’s lives, to help one another through difficult situations, to support each other when needed. If we only know about one another, and know about other people’s problems, and talk about those problems behind their back, then we are setting up our branch of the military for failure. Our mission is of utmost importance, because the safety and freedom of the American people depend upon us carrying out our mission. And, the success of our missions depends on our ability to live as a community with one another.
How much more important is the mission of the church? How much more important is it that the church lives as a community with one another?
I love what he said about the military, community, and mission. And, he is exactly right! The mission of the church – which is God’s mission – is much more important than the mission of the military. The military (or at least this chaplain) understands the importance of community in carrying out its mission. Shouldn’t the church understand that importance even more?
I’m going to repeat what he said to the church: Our mission depends upon us living as community with one another – the kind of community that knows one another and is willing to get involved in one another’s lives so that we can all help one another as we carry out this mission together.
Overflowing…
I am writing this post late Saturday evening. As I have been thinking about the activities of today, and trying to come up with a title for this post, the word that keeps popping into my head is “Overflowing”. I wanted to share some of the things that God taught me today, some of the ways that God used me today, some of the ways that God used other people in my life today… but, I realize that there are some things that I just cannot share. In some ways, sharing these things would cheapen them… or else the telling itself would somehow lessen the reality. So, as you read through this post, please understand that you are not hearing the entire story. I am not going to tell you about all the prayers that have been prayed previously and answered today, or the conversations that have previously taken place, or the concerns that have been voiced in past days. Instead, I want to share a small part of why the only word that I can think of to describe today is “Overflowing”.
A couple of weeks ago, my friend Cindy (from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy“) met a lady who was moving to Wake Forest, NC. This lady – a stranger to Cindy – mentioned that she could use some help moving. Cindy told some of her friends about this opportunity to serve a stranger. So today – moving day – several of us helped a stranger move into her new house. I couldn’t help thinking about how God has been teaching me about hospitality and “loving strangers”. In fact, it turns out that another church of a different denomination also helped the lady move. The lady said that she wanted to invite us all to dinner some time in the future. Wouldn’t it be like God to use a stranger to bring together two churches from two denominations at the same table?
When I returned home from helping this family move, I heard some very encouraging news. My son is an assistant coach for a five year old soccer team. His job is to let the boys and girls chase him around the field during practice without stealing the ball from him. Apparently, today the coach honored my son because of his attitude and service to the team. I couldn’t help but think back to our conversation last week about what God is doing in our lives. If you remember, my son said that God was teaching him how to help and care about people in need.
Later that morning, we rode to Dave and Becky Lynn Black’s farm (from “Dave Black Online“) for his “Student Day”. I was expecting to have some good food and good times at the farm. I was not expecting the tremendous fellowship that our family shared with another couple during the ride to and from the farm. My son and daughter look up to this young man and woman, and we are excited about the time that we were able to spend with them.
When we got to the farm – a little late, but just in time to eat – we heard Mrs. Black talk about missions. I was not expecting to learn more about being missional today. She talked about Moses and how he had to lay everything at the Lord’s feet – even his staff – before God could use him. She also talked about “the greatest missionary” – Jesus Christ. Perhaps, if we want to know what it means to be a missionary, or what it means to be missional, we should look no further than Jesus himself.
Also at the farm, I was not expecting to meet a family who plans to move into our neighborhood next week. This was a very special surprise, because they have a son just one year older than my son. It has been difficult for my son to make friends in our neighborhood for various reasons, and we were excited to hear this news. In fact, when we met this couple and heard that they plan to move into our neighborhood, our two sons were throwing a frisbee around the yard. They had already met one another.
On the way home, I was not expecting to get a call from a good friend saying that his grandfather had taken a turn for the worse. The couple who road with us to the Black’s farm asked if our children could stay with them while we went to the hospital. Because of their generosity and concern, we were able to spend some time with our friend whose grandfather was in ICU. We pray that we were a comfort and encouragement to them.
Now, as I look back over today – and this entire week – I am also thinking about tomorrow. You see, tomorrow I am planning to teach from Titus 2 –
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11-14 NKJV)
Today, and this week, God has revealed his grace to teach me how to live for today. Jesus gave himself to redeem me and purify me so that I could be zealous for good works. I wonder what has prepared me most to teach this Scripture: the time I spent studying the words of the text, or the time I spent living the words of the text. I believe God has used both in my life. I pray that he will continue to give me grace that teaches me how to live. And, as I learn to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, I know that Jesus will continue to overflow through me as I live.
Missional…
As far as I know, I have only mentioned the word “missional” twice on this blog: in the post “Making friends with critics…” in which I stated that I have never considered myself “emerging” or “missional” and in a quotation in the post “The Church or the Organization?“. However, the term “missional” is becoming more and more popular.
I have a few questions for my readers: What does “missional” mean to you? How does “missional” differ from “missionary”? Will the term “missional” stick around or is it a fad?
Making friends with critics…
Scot McKnight at “Jesus Creed” offers some wise advice in his post “Letters to Emerging Christians“. This post is actually his response to a letter he received and posted here.
As many of you know, I do not consider myself to be “emerging” or “missional”. I do agree with many of the things that I have read from those who consider themselves emerging/missional. However, McKnight’s post was less about emerging than it was about dealing with people who disagree and critique your views. His advice was very good.
Consider this suggestion:
Fourth, find a critic and make him or her your friend – have coffee, go out for lunch, go to dinner. Learn to converse with that person as a friend about what interests her or him and what interests you. You may grow in your appreciation for that person and she or he may grow in their appreciation for you. (Wouldn’t that be a good thing?) Gosh, maybe you will even become friends. I’ve sat over coffee with many a critic of emerging.
In another suggestion, he asks us to consider that none of us are “right” about everything. We all must be willing to listen to others, recognizing that the other person may be right.
All of his suggestions are very good. The post caused me to look at how I think about and deal with people who disagree with me. What about you?
Are you willing to sit down over coffee with someone who disagrees with you? Are you willing to talk about areas in which you agree instead of only focussing on the disagreement? Are you willing to possibly even become friends with this person? Are you willing to admit that you may be wrong and the other person may be right?
Could it be that walking in unity with someone begins with walking with someone, instead of simply critiquing their views?
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.
A "Potluck" Community…
I am slowly reading Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church, edited by Robert Webber. I have previously mentioned a couple of passages from John Burke’s chapter (see “What needs to change?” and “Can we trust God for growth?“). I am now reading Karen Ward’s chapter, which is called “The Emerging Church and Communal Theology”.
As with all books that I read about the church, I am looking for those passages that best express the church as I see it in the New Testament. Ward compares the church to a “potluck dinner”:
The closest image or analogy I have for how we do everything (“preaching,” community, and theology-making) at Apostles is the “potluck,” as this is how we function at our Abbey community kitchen meals, at our theology pubs, and in our weekly eucharistic gathering and other forms of comunity life.
A potluck is a curious, fun, risky, and unpredictable way to eat. I remember growing up in my Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in Ohio, where I first discovered, and then was horrified by, the whole concept of the church potluck.
Lutheran church potlucks are things to behold … six-foot tables covered with red plastic checkered tablecloths lined up in rows in the church parish hall. Each one filled with heaping bowls (“dishes to pass”) of often tasteless food covered with either shredded carrots, raisins, tiny marshmallows, dried fried onions, or two of the above. Much of which was served up at these suppers was not my idea of fine dining, but what I found to be tasteless, others found to be rich, what I considered too hot, others considered just right, what I considered smelly, others considered pungently gourmet. Yet despite my upturned teenage nose at these suppers, I always managed to find enough dishes to nourish my body and satisfy my hunger, somewhere between the lutefisk and lefse.
Since then, my appreciation for the potluck has only grown and deepened. Somehow, between the tiny wieners and cold sauerkraut, God always feeds us … likewise are we theologically “fed” at the Church of the Apostles’ potlucks.
Eating potluck is not quick or neat, and it also has little need for adding protein bars or other additive “high energy” packaged supplements. Potluck as a metaphor for church and for “renewed human life and community” is a rich one.
A potluck is a very interesting analogy for the church. But, it seems to fit. God has provided the church with everything that it needs – and He has provided it in the various people that are part of the church. As Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:16, the church grows when each part within the church does its share – each believer has something to bring to this “potluck”.
Similarly, those within the body that seemingly have little to add are in fact indispensible (1 Cor. 12:22), necessary for the proper functioning of the body – much like a “potluck” is not complete without each dish, including those side items that make everything just right.
What happens when every dish is placed on the table? What happens when every believer does his or her share – speaking as God directs and serving with the power of God? God is glorified! (1 Peter 4:10-11)
Will every dish on the table satisfy my needs? No. But, if I have a need, God has promised to meet it. Of course, that is assuming that everyone brings their dish, and everyone is allowed to place their dish on the table. We also learn to cook by sampling what other chefs have prepared, knowing that there is a master chef and a master recipe.
The church as a potluck… this truly is an interesting analogy. Imagine the sights, smells, sounds, tastes of a potluck… Imagine how these all join together to create a feast… Perhaps this is a good analogy of the kind of community that God is building.