Like Button

Monday, June 22, 2009

Doing Church -- Living

I've been looking at the question of whether or not we are doing church right here in the 21st century. I started by pointing to the first church from Acts 2. I see scant comparison to today's churches. I looked at biblical church leadership compared to our version. I see large disparities between the biblical prescriptions and what we're doing today. I looked at the biblical purpose of church compared with our general purpose today and found a large gap. It has all made me wonder how far off we really are from having biblical churches.

This next territory is more personal. How are Christians to be living? I connect this to "doing church" because I see the biblical model as "discipleship" or, as the author of Hebrews says it, "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Heb 10:24).

There appears to be, at least in American Christianity, a largely limited notion of what Christians should be doing. At least from the outside, it looks like we believe that our primary role in life is to point out how bad people are. We seem to think that our purpose is to make a more moral society, to try to conform our world to biblical standards of behavior. We seem, in so many cases, to be trying to make bad people into good people. And, of course, you can understand why. I mean, isn't that what the Bible says we ought to be doing? Oh, wait ... I can't find that in mine. So ... what do I find?
By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35).
"Yeah, yeah," some of you might say, "leave it to Stan to oversimplify." Maybe. But before we complicate things, let's just start with this, okay?

Since Christ is the one we're following (you know, "Christians"), I would think that Christ would be the one to best define what it means to be a disciple of Christ. Christ Himself gives one and only one genuine hallmark of a disciple: love. Christian living, then, ought to begin and end with "love". Of course this is entirely consistent with the two commandments that form the basis for all moral law -- love God and love your neighbor.

Interestingly, Jesus called this command "a new commandment" (John 13:34). What about this commandment was new? Well, first, the original command was to love "as you love yourself". Jesus said that we are to love one another "as I have loved you". That is a significant difference. But there is another difference. He is clear that the "one another" to whom He refers is the disciples. Now, to be sure, we are to love everyone, including our enemies, but Jesus gives a special command to His disciples: "Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34). It is that love for the brethren that is the hallmark of a disciple.

In the earlier example of the first church, we see this clear hallmark. "All who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (Act 2:44-47). The first church was clearly marked by a genuine, observable, practical love that exceeded the simple "as you love yourself" kind of love. It was sacrificial (you know, like Christ's love). It was personal (like Christ's love). It was observable (like Christ's love). It was selfless (like Christ's love). It was just what Christ said it should be.

So, here I am again at the question stage. Are we, as Christians, living out what Christ said we should be living out? Is the church teaching us to live genuine, Christ-like love for one another? Or are we living comfortable, selfish lives? Based on the perspective most people have of Christians, at least in America, I am sorely afraid that our churches are not molding us into genuine disciples marked by genuine love for one another and our Christians are not nearly as concerned about loving one another as we are about, oh, say, politics, morality, judgmentalism. Now, don't get me wrong. It is abundantly clear, if you read through Acts (the entire New Testament, in fact), that the disciples, as they went about being genuine Christians, did not fail to point out sin where it was -- they did not fail to stand for the truth -- but this was only part of the message they brought. And "making converts", according to Acts 2:47, was God's job. So I ask, are we sure that the Christianity in America to which we've become so accustomed is biblical? If it's not marked first and foremost by a Christ-like love for one another, I suspect we (you and I) have a problem.

15 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Amen and amen! Excellent points.

It disturbs me that so many in the church (such as myself) have a hard time disagreeing with other brothers and sisters in a loving manner.

Yes, we will disagree in the church, but the WAY we disagree - with love and charity and grace - ought to set us apart from others. And not only in disagreements, of course, but that is one obvious place that at least I need to work on.

That's one of the things I like about the Amish, for example: The way they gather together to rebuild for neighbors (and strangers) after a devastating storm. Demonstrating their love in a visible manner. We need more of that in our world.

Danny Wright said...

Where do you get your picture of Chirstianity for the purposes of this article?

Stan said...

Dan (not Trabue) (It's all so confusing),

I base my view on what I see illustrated in Scripture and the singular command "Love one another as I have loved you" which is not very well illustrated (lived out) in the American church today.

Sherry said...

The posts posing the questions concerning if we are doing church right keep reminding me of a documentary movie that was shown a few times at the church we attend. It is entitled "Lord, Save Us from Your Followers". It's fast paced, very creatively made, and quite a bit of it can be seen on lordsaveusthemovie.com.

Well, wait. Hmmm... quite a bit of USE TO be able to be seen online. I think the website was changed, because now I am only seeing a short clip. I see too that Dan Merchant wrote a book by the same title.

It can be sobering to watch when people are stopped on the street and asked to name something Christians are known for.

The only criticism I have of this movie is that there was so little mention of all the GOOD and LOVING things that true followers of Christ do and have done in this world. I thought the producer (who claims to be a Christian himself) could have put in at least a few more good words for all those 'other' Christians who truly shine light in this dark world! For those whose hearts really are for those who hurt and who try to meet the needs of many. You know, the people who are filled with God's love and then pour it out on others.

It struck me as sort of unbalanced, with most of its content coming across as anti-Christian. But, I think it was made to be viewed primarily by those who call themselves Christians, as sort of a "wake up call", to show us, 'Look, Church, THIS is how the world sees you!'

Check it out. Your church may wish to show it also. It's been a while since I saw it, but I think that, among many others, Bill Maher and Al Franken are even interviewed in it.

Basically, what I came away from the movie with was that if "they will know we are Christians by our love", a lot of those calling themselves Christians are NOT doing a very good job of that love part! But they are doing a great job of appearing to be judgmental hyprocrites who are too often trying to "fix" wayward people and things. Nothing in the movie was of any big surprise but still... ouch. How very sad. Such ambassadors of Christ are we.

Danny Wright said...

Sorry, when I said "picture of chrstianity" I meant the Christianity as bolded in this statement:

"Are we, as Christians, living out what Christ said we should be living out? Is the church teaching us to live genuine, Christ-like love for one another"

Stan said...

Dan, I understand your question better now, but I'm still not clear. I realize that when people reference "Christians" it can have a broad meaning. I am referencing genuine Christians in the genuine Church. I understand that there are a lot of wolves among the sheep, a lot of tares among the wheat, making the truth of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian somewhat obscured. But I don't expect wolves or tares to live genuine Christian lives. I'm simply asking, "If you are a genuine follower of Christ and Christ says that His true disciples are known for their love for one another, is that true of you?" And I'm asking churches (those individual gatherings of believers) "If you classify yourself as a genuine church of Christ (not the group of the same name, but one of Christ's churches), are you teaching/promoting/encouraging that kind of Christian living?"

Danny Wright said...

"Based on the perspective most people have of Christians, at least in America, I am sorely afraid that our churches are not molding us into genuine disciples marked by genuine love for one another and our Christians are not nearly as concerned about loving one another as we are about, oh, say, politics, morality, judgmentalism."

Such is the nature of "Church" today that I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. I can think of churches that NEVER speak about politics, from the perspective of taking a position. Then there are those who occasionally talk about it. These are all what I would consider conservative churches. Then on the other side of the spectrum there are those whom it would seem talk about nothing else and who are overly concerned in appearing as being judgmental. These seem to be mostly liberal churches. But you also put the word morality in there, something that conservative churches are accused of by those who hate it. This confuses me in terms of understanding what you're trying to say. My favorite post of yours is on cognitive dissonance. It is important for me for my life and belief system to be consistent. This is something that I've been thinking a lot about lately and would like for you to expound more clearly on what you mean when you say "the church". Or more clearly put possible, would you say that I'm guilty of this judging from what you've read on my blog.

Stan said...

Ah! Now I understand where you are coming from!

According to the Bible, the "prime directive" for Christians (genuine followers of Christ) is very, very simple: love. Jesus said that would be our defining mark. As it turns out, the world these days seems to think, based on our behavior, that our primary concern is politics or morality or being judgmental. In other words, we seem to have missed something.

Jesus was the example of perfect love. Jesus did speak about politics ("Render to Caesar ..."), morality, and even judgment. So I'm not saying that we ought to avoid any of those. What I'm asking is what is our motivation? Are we concerned about politics because we love the people around us and want what's best for them, or are we simply "righteously indignant"? Are we concerned about morality because we love the people around us and want what's best for them, or are we "church ladies" clucking about finding fault? Are we pointing to sin because we care, or are we simply holier-than-thou?

The problem that most people have is that they don't see that love can include all these things. On the other hand, all of these things can exclude love.

So I suppose I'm simply saying, "Check your motivation." And, in all honesty, I'm not sure I'm qualified to verify the motivation of most other people. I suspect that, if they're anything like me (human), there's room for improvement there. And I'm quite sure that we're much better overall at loving ourselves much more than we love our neighbors. But self-sacrifice isn't generally taught in church ... is it?

Danny Wright said...

Cleverly put, and thank you. But:

"As it turns out, the world these days seems to think, based on *our* behavior"

I go on about this because I'm not sure what "the world" sees or envisions when it thinks about "the church" in a Platonic meta-physical sense. I'm not arguing with you, and I know that the true church can always do better. But it won't do better by attempting to not resemble a fictitious image of her that has been cooked up by her accuser. I was concerned about two things with this post. One, was there something that you were seeing in me as in what I was writing? And two, were you responding to a picture of the church as seen through the eyes of her enemies, both those who present themselves as part of her but are only wolves in sheep's clothing, and those who are honest and courageous enough to come right out and express their hatred for her?

Danny Wright said...

Also, just curious, have you read "The Mark Of A Christian" by Schaeffer? He expounds on these very points.

Stan said...

In truth, this series (Doing Church) was spurred by a conversation I had a few weeks ago with an old Air Force buddy on the topic. He was coming from a book put out by the Barda group titled UnChristian which took polls and revealed that most Americans don't think good things when they think "Christians". One reason, of course, is that we're promised to be hated, but the other is the one I'm addressing. I don't believe that Christians in America today are marked by how much we love each other, how we sacrifice for one another, how we work hard for the best interest of each other.

If the shoe fits, wear it. By all means, if it doesn't -- praise God -- don't wear it. I'm simply saddened by the fact that a lot of what I see is that we don't love one another enough.

And, no, I've never read the book. Did he agree with me or you?

Danny Wright said...

Did he agree with me or you?

We don't disagree, at least I don't think we do, so I don't know how to answer that question. There was. one part in the book that bothered me. It dealt with the post war church in Germany. During the persecution of the Jews there was a segment of the Church that took a stand against the Nazi government. It called itself the “Professing Church” and many were killed and imprisoned for taking such a stand. After the war was over, according to Schaeffer, the two churches reunited in a loving act. I would suppose on that issue I disagreed with the book, or at least struggled with it. The book did make some good points. In fact, I assumed that you’d read it because of the similarities between your posts and that book. It is not a book really as much as it is a booklet and I think one well worth your time.

I've read most of the book Un-Christian. I actually cited it in my post on charicaturization, and I had a difficult time with it for similar reasons. That’s not to say that I agreed or disagreed with it, but rather wondered who Kinnamen was referring to when he mentioned the church. It is like a person having a twin brother who goes out and causes all kinds of mischief. No one knows that the person has a twin and so they view him as schizophrenic when he proclaims that people should not be mischievous. So he goes out and tries to act extra nice, and waters down whom he is so that people will like him. This only serves to make him appear even more schitzo.

If you haven’t guessed, I wrestle mightily with this question, not the true subject of Kinnaman, or your posts, which I would say are challenging and correct, but rather how we respond to accusations that I see as more of a response to characterization than a true assessment of the “true church”. There is always room to grow as a Christian, and we can always do a better job, but at the same time I think it is imperative that we respond to the correct assessment of our failings. I think this might be one of the reasons that the Church flourishes during persecution when there is a price to be paid for following Jesus, a price that the imposters are not willing to pay.

Sorry if I've come off as disagreeeable, it wasn't my intention.

Stan said...

I got it. You're asking questions. Since my post is a question, I think that's perfectly natural.

I read (once a long time ago and can't remember enough source information to give it) a letter written by a Roman citizen to another in the early days of the Church (genuine Body of Christ). The letter commented on "Christians" at length. The writer told how amazing these followers of Christ were, that they'd literally give the clothes off their back to their brethren when there was a need, that they'd fast several days if someone else needed food so they'd have something to give, and so on and so forth. It was quite ... amazing.

I'm frankly not all that concerned about perceptions. I suppose I should have said so. I know that people have false perceptions about Christians because of the numbers of false Christians out there. What I do wish is that they'd have a problem -- they'd have cognitive dissonance over it. I wish there was such a large number of genuine believers who would sell all they had to help their fellow believers (so to speak) that when an observer came across these false versions they'd say, "Hmmm, this doesn't align with all those others." So I'm not so much concerned about the false ones as I am about us -- me. Am I loving fellow believers as Christ loved me? If not, why not ... all perceptions aside? I just wanted to share that burden with everyone. See? I'm a nice guy after all. :)

Dan Trabue said...

I could be wrong, but I think that's Josephus who talked about how demonstrative the early church was in their love...

Stan said...

I believe there was more than one such writing, so Josephus could have been one, but the one I'm thinking of was not Josephus.