A response to Derek
I received a thoughtful response to two posts, here and here, from Derek, who is obviously a kind, handsome, thrifty, brave, and courteous Christian fellow. Oh, and one who takes well to compliments.
Derek had a couple of thoughts that I wanted to respond to here, as they are important ideas that beg further discussion. Derek was concerned about setting a "low bar" to membership in a church. Lowering the bar seemed to be troublesome to Derek, in that some compromising (watering down) of the Gospel may be taking place if a church is too easy on letting in new members. This is a good point. Derek noted that some of the "wild questions" from potential new members about the responsibilities of membership in a church would avoided if we were more strict in our delineation of what membership is all about.
In my mind, the height or depth of the bar to church membership, wild questions, and the general spiritual depth of congregants are all related to three primary things - the Word proclaimed, the Word received, and Christian Community. If we assume together that the Word is being faithfully proclaimed, then we have the issue of whether people hear it with open hearts and minds, and then whether they are acting on the direction of Scripture to lead lives that reflect genuine Christian Community.
My thinking is that one of the big reasons that the Word (once faithfully proclaimed) is not received well, or is received not in the proper context is that we church folk are pretty lousy at practicing Christian Community. Ok, let me rephrase that, we stink (often times) at understanding what Christian community really means. For further very good reading on this subject, please see this book. We can live transformed lives, we can model communities, families, friendships, and fellowships that reflect the grace of Jesus. It is very hard work, but my experience has been this is the single most important thing that leads people into relationship with Christ, not setting the bar high to membership in a religious institution. My life in Christ was brought about by seeing Christian community practiced in a college dorm at UCLA - if you can imagine that.
Derek also made a very good point, and points to something that the modern church is very poor at conveying, the concept of Christ as LORD, as opposed to Christ as Savior. Again, does this not go to the issues of Christian community? Are our lives really transformed, and do we this out in a way that is attractive to others - magnetic, appealing, life-giving and affirming?
I am concerned about the use language such as "ungodly neighbors", or the "remnant" (pertaining to the small band of faithful believers). My neighbors may indeed be ungodly, but I will choose, to my last breath, to persistently express to them, in ways that they might be able to hear, the great and immeasurable love of Christ. I will not dismiss them as ungodly, for the Hound of Heaven pursues us all, to the end. We are all, to the last person, loved greatly. And a remnant we may be, but I think we might want to be a remnant possessed of the need to share our faith to a world dying around us. Not just a defiant and self-satisfied remnant.
Derek, I hope that I have responded with a kind heart, heard your concerns, and in some small way brought understanding and hope. Hope for the church.
P.S. Derek, do you have a blog??
3 comments:
Ok, I'm not Derek, but I'd like to make some comments anyway.
As far as setting the bar for membership in a church, I don't believe there should be a bar at all. We are all sinners and have all fallen short. Even the faith we proclaim is itself a gift of God. Churches are meant to be hospitals for the sick and that means we should not put ourselves in a position to determine if someone is healthy enough to join our midst.
Having said that, I also understand that in some churches to be a member means having a vote on how the church proceeds on a matter. For this level of leadership, there should definitely be a bar. There are Biblical conditions for elders and deacons. They are there for a reason. It is good to let any who are intrigued come to hear the word of God and to welcome them with open arms. It is not good to turn over the keys of the henhouse to the fox.
Steve (and ExTex):
I appreciate your responses, but if you think flattery cuts it, well, damn you're good!
First: the best part of your response is the link to Tod's book. To all who happen to see this let me add to Steve's encomium. Get it! Read it! Read it again.
Since you are obviously a man of great intellect and perception, let me start my response by saying how glad I am to join in shouting "We Stink!" Let me also quickly add that my experience too can be voiced in your words:"my experience has been this--transformed lives; communities, families, friendships, and fellowships that reflect the grace of Jesus--is the single most important thing that leads people into relationship with Christ, not setting the bar high to membership in a religious institution." Amen and amen!
I guess--and it might take a little more give and take to fully eliminate the guesswork-- we might differ on means not ends. We agree we stink on making ourselves in the visible church a self-commending community.
I am not advocating a high bar to being born again. The "higher bar" than is now
used comes AFTER a new birth by Faith Alone through Grace Alone in the finished work of Christ Alone. After all: facts is facts, and fact is we in the visible church behave the same OR WORSE than the general culture on issues that both we and the general culture deem virtues. My comment was to express my idea that a reason for this may lie in the willingness of the visible church to create members BEFORE it raises a Christian. [Another Tod plug inserted here.]
I know the visible church is not given the role of separating the wheat from the chaff--and my "low bar" comment was not intended to convey that thought. If it did to either of you, then shame on me for my poor choice of words. Please, let me try again.
The visible church is given the role of taking "wheat" at its word, and cultivating that "self-confess wheat" until anyone in or out of the church can plainly see and state, "Man that is some great wheat! Look at the number and size of those grains; and from just one stock. Mmmmm. Mmm."
When the church takes in "wheat sprouts" as members rather than first raising them up some early level of "budding" if not actual fruitfulness, we wind up with visible churches that reflect the culture rather than the Creator. And talk about what STINKS!
I think a member of a visible church should be a Christian who has already started to bear fruit. Those who have just been born from above need the nurture of the church BEFORE--as well as after--they become members. As the visible church we must not give up on the "raising" we are required to do, but what I am suggesting that we "give up" is our enthusiasm for making "wheatsprouts" into members.
I hope that using wheat and tares rather than "sick and well" also helps you ExTex with your concern that I don't see the church as a hospital for the sick.I do! So--shifting metaphors--it's just that I don't think that a patient who's just gotten her medicine down should be moved from intensive care to the outpatient status. Or what is worse in my view,put the recently infirm in charge of healing those seeking help for their illness.
We in the visible church must not only make ourselves available as Christ to sick sinners, but once they are healthy sinners and in the process of working out their salvation by letting Christ be their Lord, we must also then train them to be "para-medics." Or encourage them to go to "Med school."
Thanks, Steve, for noting my problematic use of "ungodly" when on reflection a better term to convey my meaning would be "unchurched" or "unbelieving." Let me add another "me too" in that neither would I treat my neighbor any differently--except perhaps better--than I would treat a brother. I never have a duty to admonish my neighbor.
Your Brother in Christ,
Derek
PS: No; I don't have a blog.
I barely have time to keep Tod on his toes.
Thanks Derek:
I appreciate the depth of your comments. Do you go to Tod's church? Get a blog, brother!
Post a Comment