Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Community Identification
« Manufactured vs. Natural |
Main
| My Essential Gadgets »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
April 03, 2009
Faith : Community Identification
This is a point I have avoided writing on until now because it is too easy, too obvious, and too many people have already said this; but given yesterday's post, I think I see a new way to make a very old point.
Yesterday, I compared Christian communities (churches) with a living organism. Like a living organism, its form should be a result of the interplay between two forces – its DNA (the intent of God as expressed through the Bible and by the Holy Spirit) and its environment (the people involved). The DNA defines what species the organism is (the church is an expression of the Body of Christ) while the people have an influence on what form that expression takes.
Now consider nature again. We know a tree is a pine tree by the shape of its leaves (needles) and that it remains green all year around. While individual pine trees may have very different shapes because of their history and environments, they are unlikely to be confused with oak or elm trees because they retain certain key features which make them identifiable as pine.
So, if we accept that the form of the church may also vary as it grows in different environments, what are the distinguishing characteristics of a community by which people can use to recognize it as "Christian"?
Ask that question of most Christians, and the answer I suspect you would get would either be a list of programs "if the people in the community meet at a certain time and place and do certain things, then it is a Christian community" or a list of doctrines "if the people in the community believe these things, then it is a Christian community".
Now there may be some truths to those observations (my intent here is not to diminish the important of orthodoxy or key institutions of the church); but I do note that Jesus provided a very different way to recognize His people:
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."(John 13:35)
Jesus clearly established in the Bible that one way to recognize that a community is a collection of Christians is by their love for one another.
Ouch
When's the last time you have heard anyone say "Those people care so much for each other, they must be Christians!" I can't think of any time I have heard anything say anything even close to that. I can however recall lots of conversations about how Christians are constantly fighting with each other and everyone else.
Perhaps for all of our evolved doctrines and programs, the church needs to get back to basics: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself"
Posted by Steven at April 3, 2009 05:00 AM
Comments
'Ouch' indeed.
Posted by: roland at April 3, 2009 07:11 AM
I agree that this should definitely be a hallmark of a Christian, but I don't think they're at odds with orthodoxy. I believe love is necessary, but insufficient to call a group of people Christian.
Posted by: Tina at November 30, 2009 12:29 PM
I agree with the "necessary but not sufficient" view.
I consider "orthodoxy" to be a slippery slope. Yes, there are some basic facts one must agree with (IMHO the Nicene Creed is a good place to start); but it must also be recognized that "knowledge puffs up" and has historically worked against the cause of Love.
What's more, Christianity must be something accessible to all humanity, not just intelligent, well educated people, so the set of doctrines that are actually necessary must be few and simple, otherwise it becomes an elitist religion.
Posted by: Steven at November 30, 2009 06:18 PM
I agree that it should be accessible. My main concern is just that people will not see the value of having an intelligent faith and become synchretistic in what they believe and how they practice their faith. Israel for example would go to their idols for the daily things, while still believing in YHWH, or people in Africa still go to their shamans even after they become Christians.
Posted by: Tina ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://sighsandmusings.stevenanne.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 3, 2009 10:37 AM
It comes down to what you consider doctrinal orthodoxy.
As an example. I have seen churches that view holding to the doctrine of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture to be essential to the faith. I don't.
Is belief in free-will vs. predestination (pick one) essential?
Is belief in Substitutionary Atonement vs Christus Victor (pick one) essential?
On the flip side, believing that we must love God with all our being and love each other as we love ourselves IS essential in my opinion. Believing that our trust in all aspects of our life (not just salvation) must be in God alone is essential. Understanding that Jesus is Lord and that we serve Him, not the other way around is essential.
If you really *get* those doctrines, will you end up in idolatry? I don't think so.
My own view is that you focus on how to live as a Christian on a day to day basis, and the doctrines that come into play while doing that, and leave the rest to academics.
Posted by: Steven at December 3, 2009 02:13 PM
I'm with you on the particular ones you mentioned (predestination, Substitutionary atonement, there are even more esoteric things scholars argue about that I'd rather not even entertain) Some of the Creeds you mentioned are probably the best. It was kind of sad for me though to get to seminary after being Christian for over 10 years and discover for the first time that Jesus was coming back.
Posted by: Tina at December 3, 2009 02:47 PM
