This last weekend I finished reading a book by Joseph Hellerman, professor of New Testament at Biola University who is also involved in pastoral ministry within a church. I very much enjoyed and was challenged by the read and wanted to reflect on the content here over the next few weeks (or so). I think that's it's message has much to say to us as we explore what it means to be an organic community of Christ-followers within the cultural milieu of Austin, TX.Hellerman starts out the book with the statement, 'Spiritual formation occurs primarily in the context of community.' That resonated with me, which was a good start! But the statement also raises several questions (at least for me) primarily because of our skewed worldview when it comes to the issue of community. Nevertheless the idea that it is long-term relationships that provide the crucible for progress in the Christian faith and that people who leave (prematurely) do not grow, certainly struck a chord.
He points out how Paul's driving passion was to establish spiritually vibrant, relationally-healthy communities of believers in strategic urban centers but that today we tend to have a radical over-emphasis upon a 'personal relationship with God', something he saw as more American than biblical. It is rooted in our 'radical individualism' (a term used by social scientists) where we have been socialized to believe that our dreams, goals and personal fulfilment take precedent over any group (such as church or family). This affects the way we view the Christian life and profoundly compromises the solidarity of relational commitments. So we don't grow.
In the New Testament world, the welfare of the group to which we belonged took priority over our individual happiness and relational satisfaction. Whereas today, we tend to just use the various groups and institutions to which we belong to achieve our individual goals in life. He looks at how this works itself out in three different areas of life - vocation (the job we do), spouse (the person we marry/live with) and residence (where we live). Unlike today, people in biblical times simply did not make major life decisions on their own.
Yet for us this seems an inalienable right, a mark of our 'freedom'. But this very freedom takes it's toll in the significant stress and emotional bankruptcy of our culture - Christian or otherwise. Faced with these kind of decisions which were never meant to be taken on our own, we self-destruct under the pressure emotionally and relationally. We then turn to medication and therapy to hold us up. This works itself out in many contexts, but he identifies the situation of many young mothers, who move away from extended family and their inherent support structure, to find themselves trying to raise children seemingly alone - something that used to take a village to do.
We are born for fellowship - something reinforced in one of my readings this morning from John's first letter. "We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete." [1 John 1:3-4] Jesus deliberately chose "family" as the defining metaphor for his group of followers because of what he understood the family to mean and because of what was always intended for the family of God.
We will explore the nature of family more next time, but the first principle to be understood, and which strikes us at the very heart of our radical individualism, is that in the New Testament world, the group took priority over the individual.
How does this concept speak to, or perhaps unsettle you? What might this mean for the dynamic of our relationships within our Simple Church communities?
7 comments:
For me, community is most appealing when I feel its absence. The unsettling part is how threatening and wounding one's community can be when the central focus slips away from love. It has enormous potential and yet can so quickly tap into significant pain and wounding. Regardless, I have a deep sense of need for community for my own health and growth, not to mention what I have to contribute to others. So for me it comes down to how to identify and engage in healthy community, and then how to stay in a soul-sustainable way when the big waves inevitably crash. I long for a truer picture, greater skill, and deeper experience of the forces that positively tie a person to, and not loosen a person from, communities. For me, as much as I was raised with the idea that everything is about commitment, it seems this ultimately boils down to my particular relational needs.
This challenges me in the sense of having trust in the community to involve them in making major decisions! My resistance, I think, comes from fear based on wanting to turn such decisions over only to "mature" followers of Christ, but how does one define or measure that? I don't think you can and I think it really comes down to being led by the Spirit anyway.
So I guess the real question for me is how is the Spirit going to lead us into this kind of community life, and are we resisting or hindering the Spirit in any way (not to even say deliberately)?
This is a really interesting post Dad. I agree that there is an over-emphasis in this culture on having a personal relationship with God; that coming out of our individualism.
I do think, however, that we have to tread carefully when talking about the 'family-like' community that God longs for us to be a part of versus the actual family we were born into. I've always wondered what Jesus really meant when he talked about setting men against their fathers and daughters against their mothers in Matthew 10. I used to think that he was referring to setting christian sons against their non-believing fathers. I now think Jesus is talking about something else, something that goes very deep into the heart of God's love and his plan for us.
I think that in many countries, but America especially, the above mentioned unhealthy emphasis on individualism also manifests itself into the idea of the family. When we start to draw family lines and think of ourselves and our posessions as belonging to the biological family we were born into, we create an us vs. them kind of mentality. It's dangerous when we put 'the family' on a pedestal. I realize that what Jesus is implying in this passage is that we are to think of everyone we interact with as a member of our family, especially those in the church. Biological families are temporary when talking about eternity. Of course that doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't lay down our lives for our spouse or our children, we should. But we should be just as ready to do the same for the stranger down the street.
"If any man would come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34)." Haurewas would say that such a renunciation is not merely an existential giving up of the self, but the surrender of family life and affection. He says that biology does not make parents in the church, baptism does. Baptism makes all adult christians parents and gives them the obligation to help introduce these children to the gospel. So, by the vows of Baptism, the Church reinvents the family.
All that to say, we are definately called to and made for a family-like community. One in which we are loved, and known, and accepted. One in which we are edified and challenged, much like what the biological family (should) look like. But, when the bible talks about such a community, I don't think it is referring to the biological family, or that alone. So for the "many young mothers, who move away from extended family and their inherent support structure, to find themselves trying to raise children seemingly alone - something that used to take a village to do", hopefully their churches can rise up and take on the obligation they have, as Christians, of helping raise the children in the way of Jesus.
This message speaks to me deeply, especially as I am away from you all (and as we moved away from our family in England). I really have learned this by living it, and it's had its ups and downs! It especially speaks to me as I think about all of the orphans, widows, divorced, and lonely people in the world without biological families around them. It is a challenge to us as the church to love 'the other', the downcast, and the poor as our brothers and sisters, and a lifelong challenge to me as Dave and I commit to not only starting a biological family, but to always be ready to welcome those in need into our home and our lives as family.
Those are my thoughts, sorry it's so long ; )
No need to apologize Han, I appreciate your taking time to express your thoughts. Hopefully others do too.
I want to talk more about the nature of the 'family of God' next time, but I did want to reflect back some things that occurred to me as I read your response.
I don't think that we are supposed to think of 'everyone we interact with' as family. I don't even think that that is how God sees everyone, but that as you say, through baptism we become a part of God's family and it is specifically the brothers for whom we are to lay down out lives (1 John 3:16).
I agree, Dad. I guess what I meant to say is that in Christ we have the freedom to love our enemies and those who are different to us. I really think that is part of being the family of God, and being outwardly focused. That in him, family lines are dissolved and we are part of the new family that is the church (as you said). But being part of that family means ministering to, loving, and welcoming nonbelievers in a way in which we would treat our own loved ones. Part of the nature of the family of God is that the love we share spreads outside of its walls.
I'm not sure I know how God thinks about everyone (in the family sense). I know that in that moment that Jesus gave his life, he gave it for everyone, not just christians. Surely God sees every person on this earth as his child, and therefore in some sense, we are all brothers and sisters.
I agree Han with what you say about our reflecting the Father's love to all that we might meet. But as you said, it is baptism that 'reinvents family' - symbolic of the new birth - and not our natural birth. Otherwise there is no need of baptism, or cross, or Christ .....? I'm not sure how scripturally we can say God sees everyone as his child (vs his creation), even though our hearts - as a reflection of God's heart - may long for this.
Following up on Hannah’s thoughts and Mikes response.
The true family of God are all who can God call Father. Those adopted into His family. So in that regard, although God loves everyone, He is not Abba Father to those who have not received Him.
Also if we are born again, we are biologically born (again) in to the lineage of Jesus so there is a biological living organic relationship between Christ and the Church.
True family life in the fullness of what God intended is only when we receive Christ and are welcomed into the perfect family that existed before the foundation of the world. The triune relationship between Father, Son and Spirit and we enter in and become part of that family, nonhierarchical relationship of love when we place our faith in Jesus for salvation. In that regard, we are eternally part of Gods family and joined to other believers organically as family and will remain family forever. Whereas if we have for example parents, brother and sisters, mothers and fathers, who are not born again, they are now no longer part of our family. They are in a different biological lineage, the lineage of Adam. Hard as it may seem to understand, our unsaved family members not really part of our family anymore. We have a new family. That is why so the Lord puts so much importance on community, love and unity of the believers.
Post a Comment