"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--FDR
How many things do we do out of fear? How many things do we not do because we are afraid of what the consequences or repercussions will be? How often do we decide not to stand for the truth because we are fearful that someone who is listening to us will make our lives more difficult?
I think most of us who work in full-time church ministry deal with this type of fear everyday. We have to pick our battles and determine what things are worth fighting for and what things are worth dropping all together. Do we have to do this because of who we are as leaders or because of who we lead? I had an interesting conversation with a colleague this week, and this is not the first conversation I have had like this. Before I decided to go into full-time church ministry, I had several people ask me if that was REALLY what I wanted to do. I told them it was and that I always felt that at some point in my professional life I needed to do this. Well, the most recent conversation went something to this effect: Me: "You know, working in the church can be interesting." Them: "I don't know how you deal with CHURCH people. I work at my church, but I don't know how you can do it full time. It would just be exhausting." I had very little rebuttal. I told this person that I worked with a lot of wonderful people, and they said, well, they are all wonderful, just difficult.
I have thought about this a good bit and I have to wonder: "Do church folks deserve the bad rap they get in the world and in the emergent arena?" I read a long thread to one of my favorite blogs this past week and it seems that many either love the church wholeheartedly and blindly, defending her with their last breath; or, they hate the church and despise her every action as the misguided steps of people who just do not get the 21st century. I guess my real question is can their be a balance between loving the church as the Bride of Christ, our mother, and still being aggravated and, sometimes disgusted with what she does (in Jesus' name)? I think that most blind church lovers think the emergents are out to destroy the church and the emergents think the blind church lovers have already done a good job of destroying the church. What is sad is I think most people on both sides love the Bride of Christ and the Bridegroom, it is just that our methods and terminologies are so different that we cannot communicate well with each other. What must this communication gap be like for those who are not in the church at all?
I am hoping to find the balance between a total love for the Church as Christ's Bride which we are commanded to do in the Scriptures and a critical spirit which is often at the fore in emergent discussion of the church. I think it is like this: I can speak about my mother all day long, but don't let me catch anyone else speaking about her in a negative way. We often speak most critically of that which we love most, that we care about most, that we want to see flourish and are disappointed when she does not exceed our expectations. Christ told us that we would do greater things, now let's stop arguing about exactly how to do those things, and just do them. Let us be willing to overcome our fear with the power of the Holy Spirit and hopefully our fear of each other will dissipate into cooperative work toward the prize, the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
3 comments:
My two cents...
Though not meant to address your topic in full, it seems to me that often the battle is not intrinsically over practice (though that is an easy place for the fearful to camp), but over a basal conception of what the Church is to be—who should serve whom? Does the bride primarily exist to serve the Groom or the Groom the bride? And, once this is accepted, how do they do what they do? Does the bride serve the Groom principally by attending Him or His interests? Does the Groom serve the bride by principally meeting her needs or by giving her purpose? (I don’t propose that these are either/or motions. Neither am I suggesting that there are equal compromises between them. Identity and effectiveness demand a closer range and more narrow focus.) I don't believe that the problem is a disdain, contempt or even frustration for the bride. It would seem to me that believers who hold contempt for her hold contempt for themselves or they are not truly believers at all— merely members of a morally intended civic organization.
Optimistically, I would say that both the tradition and emergent church (and most everyone in between) would agree that the body of Christ is to be His worthy representative, that we are to be about His purpose—entente cordiale. The point of contention: what is His purpose… or maybe who? I believe you hit this in your ecclesiology entry. How do we measure success in the life, the task, the mission before us? I proffer that the key to success in life is just that, knowing how to measure it. Knowing who gets to measure it. Knowing who doesn’t and why. What is the standard for value?
The hard questions are often the ones that challenge measurable outcome against intention. Whose intentions are they? Where do they originate? And then, where do they, how do they, at what point do they culminate? We spend most of our time theorizing, germinating and the life of the gospels is an experiment in a Petri dish and has little or no eternal value in a real world. Our discussions are less Theocentric and more ecclesiastical and without a concerted center (an impossible mandate). This is why I believe that the Church is of little import to an emerging society. It is not the only reason. But it is as close to the root as I might come here today.
James, your comments are always insightful. You clearly have thought about what I have written and have developed fitting responses to these and other questions with which you too have wrestled. My hope is that the church will indeed be a vital part of the emerging society. Maybe I am naive to hope for this, but I want to believe that the church in some form, whether it looks anything like the one of today, will be a part of all generations.
In your comment on my "Bless Me Father" blog you mentioned that you did not know that I had gone to visit a Catholic priest. Are we acquainted in real(as opposed to virtual) life? I would definitely enjoy knowing more about your perspectives.
James, it is good to know you are indeed a special friend. I am a schmuck. But that is Dr. Schmuck nonetheless.
Post a Comment