I want to follow on from last week’s blog regarding Joseph Hellerman’s book, ‘When the Church was a Family’. The main point coming from last week was that in the New Testament world the group took priority over the individual. Hellerman goes on to define two further principles;
#2: In the New Testament world a person’s most important group was his blood family
#3: In the New Testament world the closes family bond was not the bond of marriage. It was the bond between siblings (central value being undying loyalty towards one’s blood brothers/sisters and therefore the most treacherous act of disloyalty was the betrayal of one’s brother, not spouse).
He looks at several examples in secular, biblical and Jewish writings, of how these principles were demonstrated. He concludes that such an understanding of ancient family (unlike our own contemporary experience) is of great significance when we think of Jesus’ deliberate use of the family metaphor (brothers and sisters in Christ, worshipping one God as father) for his group of followers. The family of the Church has priority over the individual member such that the individual was “responsible to the church for his or her actions, destiny, career, development and life in general”. This is what gave early Christianity much of its social power.
The words spoken by Jesus in Mark 3:33-35, ‘”Who are my mother and my brothers?” He asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”’ Were utterly scandalous in the cultural context in which Jesus lived, where as the oldest surviving male (presuming the death of Joseph), he was responsible for the defense, provision and leadership of his patrilineal kinship group. Those who followed Jesus were to exercise primary allegiance to a new family – just as Jesus himself had done.
Jesus wanted his followers to interact with one another like members of a ‘strong-group’, surrogate family characterized by collectivist solidarity and commitment on every front. Such was Jesus’ vision for authentic Christian community and his followers largely “got it” and put it into practice. Their world was never the same. The whole Roman Empire ultimately bowed its knees to the King of kings and Lord of lords, millions were converted and, for better or worse, Christianity became the state religion of the empire. The opposite seems to happening today in the West.
Hellerman identifies in Paul’s writings four aspects in which he applies this family imagery;
(i) Affective Solidarity – the emotional bond Paul experienced amongst the ‘brothers and sisters’ in God’s family
(ii) Family Unity – the interpersonal harmony and absence of discord Paul expected amongst the ‘brothers and sisters’ in God’s family
(iii) Material Solidarity – the sharing of resources that Paul assumed would characterize relationships amongst the ‘brothers and sisters’ in God’s family
(iv) Family Loyalty - the undivided commitment to God’s group that was to mark the value system amongst the ‘brothers and sisters’ in God’s family
The early Christians of the Roman world, when Christianity was still a small persecuted sect, made tremendous demands of their converts, demands that affected the most important areas of their lives. And people came in droves. People did not convert to Christianity solely because of what the early Christians believed, but also because of the way they behaved. It was not so much about an ideology as it was the social solidarity experienced in the early Christian communities. They practiced love of one’s neighbor more effectively than any other group, whether those ‘neighbors’ were inside or outside the community. Tertullian (c. AD 200) said this;
“We call ourselves brothers . . . So, we who are united in mind and soul have no hesitation about sharing what we have. Everything is in common among us – except our wives.”
Next week I want to bring the focus to today to consider our response to Jesus’ vision for authentic Christian community that will inevitably challenge the radical individualism of much of our thinking – both in the church and outside.
3 comments:
Thanks for sharing more of your thoughts, Mike. I like where you're headed. One comment sparks a response from me...
The early Christians ... made tremendous demands of their converts ... that affected the most important areas of their lives.
The phrase "tremendous demands" carries with it a connotation of some sort of coercion or pressure coming from the community toward the individual believer. I LOVE the idea of a community with this kind of solidarity, loyalty, and unity, though my own efforts have largely fallen short of what I long for. But that idea of demands chafes me. Perhaps it rubs up against my own individualistic commitments and/or my need for respect. I have the impression it was a freewill generosity of the heart of believers in response to the love received God and the community, absent of any community pressure or demand.
Is that accurate? Do we have any evidence of what those demands might have looked/sounded like then?
Hi Mike,
We talked before about Hellerman’s book, and I expressed some skepticism. Since then I have read several chapters, and my skepticism has only deepened.
The examples that Hellerman uses to prove his “principles” are deeply flawed, to say the least. Just one example: he mentions that Herod killed his beloved wife to gratify his sister, supposedly because he put family ties above spousal relationships. With all due respect, this is hooey. What Herod cared about was power, period. He killed his wife because his power was threatened. With equal perspicacity he killed blood-family members who got in his way. In this respect, he was absolutely no different from any of the tin-pot despots who today rule much of Africa and Asia.
Notwithstanding, we need to pass from principles to practicals. What are the practical implications of Hellerman’s principles? Basically, that church comes first. Life decisions about location and career should revolve around the church.
Hellerman seems to think that a Christian’s first calling is to his or her church. But how does this compare with actual practice? According to George Barna’s research, the top five reasons that people join churches are: doctrine/theology (58%); people caring for each other (53%); preaching (52%); friendliness (45%); children’s programs (45%). Where on this list is “calling” or “mission”? Hellerman might say that people are simply not viewing their choices in proper perspective. I would counter that it is impossible for people to do so, because the current church system is fundamentally flawed.
Hellerman seems to miss a key practical point, which is not at all surprising since he is a professional pastor and thus has a skewed life experience. In New Testament times, the church (and life in general) was local. Where you worked was where you lived was where you fellowshipped. (it’s very easy for Americans to miss this, because most Americans don’t have the foggiest notion what a local lifestyle is. I only know about it because I lived in China for several years.)
I would suggest that a believer is called first to a location or profession (as Abraham was; as Paul was; as indeed Adam was). His or her church should then naturally be the other believers who live and work in the same place. This was how Paul was called: not to churches, but to locations. The churches he founded and participated in were defined by location, and not vice-versa.
I would suggest that this basis for God’s calling has not changed. What has changed is the church system. Churches today are set up as spiritual restaurants: and no matter how much they try to be “family”, they only end up being family-style restaurants. This is because (I believe) God intends the Church to be organized along community lines, and not as separate institutions.
In Him
Chris
I too feel the tension between what we long for (as an ideal) and what we actually experience. My hope is that we share a common vision and that we find ourselves moving in the right general direction :)
As to the discomfort with the phrase 'tremendous demands', I would offer the following thoughts. Hellerman recognizes the individual's personal free choice to join the particular 'family group' or faith community, which is an important point. But I think it is not uncommon to find any group or community making demands of it's members. In a sense, this is what makes it identifiable and distinctive from the general population. The same would be true of Jesus' community. Even with Paul, there is a point at which exclusion from the community becomes the final resort for those who do not choose to follow the behavioral norms (aka 'demands'?) of the community.
But the important point (I think) is the manner in which those demands are made. We would want to show grace in such circumstances, recognizing that sanctification is a process or journey and here again we are back to the importance of more clearly identifying the vision and direction of the group/family. By owning this process as a community (rather than one person making such decisions), we would be perhaps more likely to hold ourselves to the values/demands which we were seeking to apply to others.
I think that most of us who are sincere in our devotion to Jesus Christ, also require the discipline and encouragement of a community (of love) that will help us to remain faithful to the call. Hopefully the blessing of the community would cause us in part to question any behavior that might jeopardize that blessing, either to us or to the others in the group to whom we are inextricably linked through Jesus.
Case in point (though an example with perhaps many other mitigating circumstances) might be the example of Tiger Woods and his apparent redirection of his priorities in order not to be expelled from his own 'family' ... I am not suggesting that a 4-iron be the instrument of choice for the reinforcement of the demands of our faith communities :)
Post a Comment