Posted by Eliza on: 08.21.2006 /
In Helen’s long-running thread Why I Don’t Go to Church Anymore, Andy M suggested recently that:
The Jesus following life is always lived out in the context of a community. For sure there are lots of communities out there who say they represent Jesus, but, by our own observation we can see that they do not.
As to the signs that some one knows God well, I would say the signs are a life with marked similarity to Jesus’ life, an honest pursuit of him, a desire and an honest attempt to do what he taught, and not just what feels good, easy or convenient, but the hard stuff too.
Comment by: JG
1To be honest I have a slightly negative reaction to this. I think this comes down to a reluctance to judge other people or communities. I also feel that whilst there is a place for challenging others, challenge is only effective if done in the context of encouragement and acceptance rather than condemnation.
Take someone who is struggling with loneliness, depression or bereavement, marriage breakdown, loss of a child or childlessness etc etc. A Christian community needs to embrace such a person, accept them, love them and make them feel they belong.
Take someone with rough edges. Someone who talks too much. Who keeps putting their foot in it. Who says the wrong thing. A Christian community needs to accept such people and embrace them despite their rough edges.
Take someone with “learning disabilities” (do you use that phrase in the USA?). A Christian community needs to value such people and treat them with respect, not patronise them.
I could go on at length. Through their involvement in a Christian community, I would want to see their lives transformed. I do believe in God and believe he does have power to transform peoples’ lives. But such people need to be loved, accepted and embraced whether or not their circumstances change. There is a risk of “helping people” for a certain period of time and then when things don’t change or you feel you are saying the same thing again and again, you give up on them and marginalise them.
I would not place demands on people who belong to a Christian community. I would rather simply accept people and embrace them. And where a Christian community is able to do that, then I believe it will be truly “following Jesus”!
I think a Christian community needs to be clear about its identity. If it fudges its identity so as not to offend anyone, it runs the risk of having no identity. I don’t see anything wrong in being clear about what you believe and stand for – provided you are willing to accept and embrace others who see things differently from you. I therefore have no problem with there being different churches or communities in the same town, each with their own emphasis, being clear about their individual identities – but respecting each other and working together rather than regarding themselves as the only one true church in the area. Each expression of church as its strengths and weaknesses and too often they focus on their strengths and the weaknesses of others.
I also think we need to be real – so I believe in a Christian community people should feel free to share their difficulties and doubts without fear of rejection rather than feel they have to hide behind a mask.
Because I see “following Jesus” as being about being in relationship with God and other people, I find it hard to see how someone can claim to be seeking to follow Jesus but be unwilling to relate to others. Relationships are difficult and sometimes people need time and space to be on their own (sometimes for years) and I would want to accept and embrace such people not judge them for not being part of a church/community. I can also understand why people who have experienced a church/community that has failed to be loving/accepting may be reluctant to be part of another church/community. Again, I see the answer as acceptance and encouragement not condemnation and exclusion.
Comment by: jim
2JG
You said
Can you please tell me what you mean when you use the term “transformed”?
You also said
Does this mean to you that they need to be part of an organized group or would it count if they were relating to others (in what might appear to onlookers) in a somewhat disorganized manner?
Comment by: Eliza
3JG – thanks for your comments, and your honest reaction.
My intent wasn’t to judge others, rather to have people describe how people might judge their own lives in terms of following Jesus, and how they come to their beliefs on what that looks like. I think there’s some inherent component of “my way is correct” that’s unavoidable, even if that “way” is tolerance. In most cases, someone with options does try to live in a good. moral manner. But what parts of that crystallize to make it “Jesus-following”, for Christians?
Trying to clarify for myself – it seems that you see acceptance and tolerance (and, perhaps patience) as hallmarks of Jesus-following, if I may use that term. You seem to also be saying in your comments that Christian theology is also part of following Jesus (that may seem too simple, but Jesus didn’t come to establish a religion – I’m interested too in how much belief in his divinity is thought to be crucial for Cs in picturing a Jesus-following life).
Which differences between churches and beliefs do you see as not having any impact on whether the walk is following the talk, so to speak? Theological ones? Style? Not a few groups do seem to feel quite strongly that their theology is correct, and thus tolerance to other beliefs will unnecessarily expose them to risk of damnation. That’s a very serious consideration for them, I can understand.
That’s a nice description of how you see “following Jesus” & describes difficulties as well as wonders of the importance of such relationships.
Comment by: Eliza
4I heard a powerful poem-prayer by Michel Quoist yesterday, that seemed to also allude to this question. I’ve abridged it heavily (for space, and to avoid copying it wholesale) – hence all the ellipses. It is, of course, more poetic and powerful in its entirety; you can see the entire poem in sermons at several sites online, including this one if you are interested.
***************
Lord, why did you tell me to love all men?
I have tried, but I come back to you, frightened….
Lord, I was so peaceful at home, I was so comfortably settled.
It was well-furnished, and I felt cozy….
But, Lord, you have discovered a breach in my defenses.
You have forced me to open my door….
Rashly enough, I left my door ajar. Now, Lord, I am lost!
Outside, they were lying in wait for me.
I did not know they were so near; in this house, in this street, in this office; my neighbor, my colleague, my friend.
The first came in, Lord. There was, after all, a bit of space in my heart.
I welcomed them. I would have cared for them and fondled them, my very own little lambs, my little flock.
You would have been pleased, Lord; I would have served and honored you in a proper,
respectable way.
Until then, it was sensible….
Now they have come from all over…numberless, inexhaustible….
They come bending under heavy loads; loads of injustice, of resentment and hate, of suffering and sin….
Lord, they hurt me! They are in the way, they are all over.
They are too hungry; they are consuming me!….
I can’t stand it any more! It’s too much! It’s no kind of a life!
What about my job?
My family?
My peace?
My liberty?
And me? …
******************************
I wondered, where along the progression here would most of us draw the line and say, that’s it – I can’t (or don’t want to) do any more, can’t be more accepting or helpful to those in dire need. (I suspect we all do have a cut-off…but that’s a guess. Not a judgment!)
The last stanza is more positive and hopeful:
Comment by: JG
5Jim, Thanks for your response.
I think this is a separate topic so would rather not open up a debate on it here. But very briefly, I think Isaiah 61 verses 1 and 3 sum up quite well when I mean.
You need to see my comments in the context of my comments made after the section you quoted. I would encourage regular sustained involvement with a local group but recognise that for some this is difficult particularly those whose work prevents such involvement. I particularly value my contacts with people beyond my immediate church group and sometimes it is those contacts which sustain people.
I dislike the phrase “would it count” as if people had to satisfy a test. And it is not for one person to judge another. I think the principle of relating to others is clear. How this is worked out in practice will vary from one person to another.
Comment by: JG
6Eliza thanks for your response — and for your quote from Michel Quoist which illustrates for me the point that although principles may be clear, working them out in practice may not be easy.
I’m sure you are not looking to judge others — my concerns relate to the theme rather than the intent. I think we need to be careful when judging ourselves as well. We can often be our own worst critic and the risk is that when you consider all the things we should be doing (whether we have faith or not) we can feel so condemned or that the task is so great that we give up trying. I agree your quote from Michel Quist is relevant here.
For me, the essence of Christianity is that we can be accepted by God even though we do fail rather than that we have to attain to a certain standard. Compare it to a race — say the marathon. It is not a question of restricting membership to those who achieve a certain time say 4hours for the race. Or compare it to taking an exam. Membership is not restricted to those who get a certain number of marks say 75%. But it does rely on a willingness to accept that no matter how good you may be, the standard, if we rely on our own efforts is 100% and none of us achieve that. Because we are not accepted, we then choose to seek to do the best we can not to qualify or earn acceptance but because we have been accepted.
How do I answer that in a few words? I’m also uncertain about the phrase “Jesus following” but as a first clumsy attempt to perhaps just point the way, could I suggest that from my viewpoint, the difference for Christians is the acknowledgement of God and that it is how he wants us to live that matters rather than our own view of what is good and moral.
Again, hard to answer in a few words. Different groups will have different views. I think it is right for groups to be clear about what they believe and what they stand for. I think they should respect others who see things differently. So if one group believe that only members of that group will be “saved”, I respect their right to believe that but reserve my right to profoundly disagree with them. In politics, it is good to see politicians who are able to enjoy friendships with politicians “on the other side despite having opposite politicial views.
If I was a rugby player, I would seek to belong to a rugby club. I would not seek to join a football club and expect them to cater for my interest in rugby. If, having been a member for a few years I decided to give up rugby and take up football, again, I wouldn’t expect them to cater for my interest in football. But if I left and joined a football club, I would hope I could still retain my friendships with members of the rugby club even though I was no longer involved in playing for them. If a particular rugby club wanted to restrict membership to people over 6 foot tall or to people with ginger hair then so be it. I would be unable to join that particular club.
I also think there is a difference between leadership and participation. So for example, in Baptist churches in the UK, it is not normally a requirement to have been baptised by full immersion in order to be a member. But it is usually a requirement for anyone in leadership. So they are saying it is not a requirement in order to be recognised as a Christian but because the Baptist church believes in the practice of baptism by full immersion, it is a requirement for its leaders. I’m not saying that policy is right or wrong, merely offering it as an example.
Comment by: Rachel
7Jim asked JG:
That’s a good question, Jim. I guess “transformed” is another one of those churchy words we use. I think I use that word a lot without even recognizing that is “Christianese” or that the meaning is extremely subjective. Hmmm…gotta think on that one.
Comment by: jim
8JG Since “transformed” is such a commonly used phrase in churches I think we should be able to explain it in a sentence or two- so can you do that for me?
As far as counting and you not liking it – unfortunately that is how Christians have been trained to think- This prayer “counts” to God and that one doesn;t. Certainly how one understands what constitutes being part of a community is countable and Christians (Jews and Muslims) all have ways of determining who’s in and who’s out – so back to my original question- would it count if someone said they were part of a community but not in an organized fashion.
For example – does this online community count
Comment by: JG
9I’m sorry Jim but I find your evident hostility unhelpful and don’t see any value in continuing this dialogue.
I think it would be more helpful if you attempted to respond to the original questions posed by Eliza from your perspective rather than seeking to find fault with the attempt made by someone else to respond to those questions.
Comment by: jim
10Sorry you interpreted it as hostility – I am really just asking a couple of questions- no need to respond if it upsets you
Thanks
Comment by: JG
11I think you will find I have already responded to both questions in comment 5. I find your accusation in your comment
unhelpful.
Rachel – I note your comment. I do have thoughts on this but will respond on the “A Christian Language?” thread in due course.
Comment by: Rachel
12JG, I know that blogging can be a challenging form of communication since we can’t see or hear the person we are conversing with. I think that those of us who have met Jim or heard him speak in person might have a clearer idea of his communication style. My own perception of Jim is that he is not hostile at all, but simply wants to challenge other people and himself to think deeper and wrestle with tough questions.
Last fall, I attended the Off the Map conference where Jim was the host/emcee. One of the features of the event were the informal interviews that Jim would conduct with various people in a “living room” type set on the stage. He interviewed each of the keynote speakers, as well as “ordinary people” with different backgrounds and experiences. Jim’s style was to ask probing questions to dig deeper. He would often ask people to define terms they had used or explain how a particular idea would be put into practice in real life. This was a very valuable part of the event.
JG, I really think that what you perceived as hostility or accusation was simply Jim’s way of promoting dialogue. I know from what I observed at the conference that when Jim asks people questions, he really does want to hear what they have to say. Just my two cents. :)
Comment by: Rachel
13On another thread, JG brought up the Bible character Zacchaeus as an example of someone who was transformed by his encounter with Jesus. The story of Zacchaeus is one of my favorites and I think it has great relevance for believers living in developed countries.
For anyone not familiar with the story, Zacchaeus was a Jewish man who had taken a job collecting taxes for the Roman occupying government. It was common for tax collectors to overcharge the citizenry on their taxes and pocket the difference. To his fellow Jews, Zacchaeus would have been considered the worst kind of traitor – one who collaborated with the foreign invaders and became rich by cheating his own people.
So when Jesus singled Zacchaeus out of a crowd and then visited Zacchaeus’ home, the crowds were pretty upset. They complained that Jesus had gone to be a guest in the house of a “notorious sinner.” Then Zacchaeus said to Jesus, “I will give half my wealth to the poor, Lord, and if I have overcharged people on their taxes, I will give them back four times as much!” (By the time he did all that, he probably would have nothing left!) And Jesus replied, “Surely salvation has come to this home today!”
I think it is interesting to note what Zacchaeus did not say – he didn’t say “Jesus, I want you to be my Savior” or “Jesus, I believe in you” or “Surely you are the son of God.” He said I’m going to pay back what I have stolen (personal righteousness) and give to the poor (social/structural justice). Zacchaeus knew exactly what the core issue was – his money and possessions. He had benefited from an unjust system and he knew if he wanted to follow Jesus, he would have to choose – serve money or serve Jesus. Faced with that choice, he gave it all away. And Jesus responded, “Surely salvation has come to this home!” Zacchaeus was saved. He had been a slave to his possessions, consumed by his greed and now he was free – saved from slavery!
I think this story speaks powerfully to those of us who want to follow Jesus today. As Eliza pointed out, we live in modern, developed countries. We are the powerful and privileged. We are in the top 10% of the world’s wealthiest people. Even if we have been honest in our personal dealings, we have benefited from an unjust economic system. And we live in a society that worships money and material possessions.
If we are true followers of Jesus, if our lives will have a marked similiarity to his, then we can not ignore the needs in the world around us and make materialism and consumerism our gods. I think this is one of the greatest challenges for western Christians today – it certainly is in my own life.
Comment by: jim
14OK JG
Â
Rachel – I like where you are coming from with this interpretation
Comment by: Keith
15Rachel,
Thank you for pointing to Zaccheus. It was good for me to hear that this morning. Thank you.
Comment by: Keith
16JG,
You said, “Take someone with rough edges. Someone who talks too much. Who keeps putting their foot in it. Who says the wrong thing. A Christian community needs to accept such people and embrace them despite their rough edges.”
You said, “I would not place demands on people who belong to a Christian community. I would rather simply accept people and embrace them. And where a Christian community is able to do that, then I believe it will be truly “following Jesus”!
You said, ” also think we need to be real – so I believe in a Christian community people should feel free to share their difficulties and doubts without fear of rejection rather than feel they have to hide behind a mask,” and “Again, I see the answer as acceptance and encouragement not condemnation and exclusion. ”
Thank you for emphasizing acceptance. Having said these things, you then say:
“I’m sorry Jim but I find your evident hostility unhelpful and don’t see any value in continuing this dialogue.”
Is this accepting? Or is this embracing? I am confused. Please clarify. Thank you.
P.S. I don’t think Jim is a guy who talks too much and puts his foot in his mouth … I included that quote because I was guessing that you felt his comments were foot-in-mouth. Thanks.
Comment by: jim
17Keith – you said
O yes I do
Comment by: Keith
18Jim,
I stand corrected :-) … that makes at least two of us
Comment by: Keith
19I should have said, “In this particular case, I do not think Jim is talking too much and putting his foot in his mouth.” Again, I apologize for the misrepresentation :-).
Comment by: Matt Casper
20Hello,
It’s Matt, Jim’s co-author and current atheist (agenda-free atheist, I might add).
I see the difficulty you’re having defining what it means to be a Christian: What’s the identity? How do we communicate it? What words do we use?
And I think the problem is that Christianity is not something you define; it’s something you do.
With any belief system—Christianity, Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, Hinduism—you’ll always struggle to define it to others as it’s something you hold in your heart, not necessarily your head.
Your head will always fight your heart over your beliefs: “come on, heart, how can that be true? We haven’t seen any proof up here, and you know how the head needs PROOF… is there something you’re not telling us, heart?”
So you can quote scripture, and you can engage in semantic tactics, but the only way you can define Christianity is by DOING it. Look at Lawndale Community Church in Chicago: they’re doing it. Look at Hawthorn House in San Diego: they’re doing it.
Jim and I went to a lot of churches, and almost all gave us lots and lots of words about what it means to be a Christian: there were words the spoke at us, words they wanted us to speak, words we could take home with us in pamphlets and whatnot.
But when you see people in the trenches, helping people who have less or people who are in trouble, that’s the definition of Christian. Or at least it should be.
That’s my two cents.
Matt
Comment by: jim
21Matt – you ought to consider becoming a follower ( but not for at least 3 years)
Comment by: Rachel
22Welcome, Matt! We need more atheists on this blog. :) I hope you will hang around and share your opinions and ideas.
I checked out Lawndale – what a wonderful church! A multi-ethnic, inner city congregation that is really meeting needs in the community – housing, youth, health care, prison ministry. They aren’t just talking about the love of Jesus, they are demonstrating it. We need more churches like that.
I googled “Hawthorn House San Diego” and didn’t find anything – do you have a link?
I totally agree, Matt. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that is “good news for the poor.” If the gospel we preach isn’t good news for the poor, then it isn’t the gospel of Jesus.
Comment by: JG
23I like Rachel’s description of the meaning of transform at http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/08/10/a-christian-language/#comment-1525 and also strongly agree with Matt’s comments.
It was the way that Jesus related to people that led to their “transformation” – with Peter, Jesus said:
He wasn’t looking at the person who was going to let him down and deny him three times. He was looking at the person Peter was to become and he believed that such a radical change was possible. I believe a similar attitude in needed in our relationships. It is our belief that people and their circumstances can change and our attitude towards them as a result that can most help that change come about.
Contrast this with the attitude of – “oh, she’s a struggler, always will be, not worth wasting time trying to help her” – which I am afraid to say is the sort of attitude I frequently encounter and which I am fundamentally opposed to. And sadly it is often church leaders who have such an attitude. If that was my only experience of church I am sure I would have given up on church and God a long time ago.
Often people are rejected because of the way they are. But often they are the way they are because of rejection. We need to embrace them, encourage them and seek to build them up not add yet more rejection.
Comment by: Helen
24JG wrote:
I wonder if we see church leaders with this attitude because they are getting overwhelmed and outpeopled. Maybe what they need is a vacation (holiday).
I expect they went into the ministry because they cared and wanted to help people. But those who go into any kind of people-helping ministry do risk getting overwhelmed by the amount of need there is out there.
Comment by: JG
25Helen,
Thanks for your comments. Yes I agree. But there are leaders who simply don’t know how to care for and encourage others and who, by applying wrong principles, can cause great harm to others.
As an example of what I regard as wrong teaching see:
http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/engine.cfm?i=92&id=20&arch=1
My main problem with this article is over the idea you can neatly divide people into two categories and reduce the need for discernment to simply deciding which of the two categories people fall into. And even if people do hop from church to church, draining the resources of the leaders they come into contact with, perhaps that has been because they have not met someone with the ability to really care for them.
If someone is labelled as a “church hopping parasite” it is little wonder that they leave the church that so labels them! But such “leaving” then serves as further evidence that the labelling is right. It is a vicious circle.
For me it comes down to faith. Do I believe that God can transform this person’s circumstances or at least their ability to cope with their circumstances? Jesus had such faith and his contact with people led to them experiencing transformed lives. He didn’t put them in a box. He didn’t say, oh Peter, he always lets people down, can’t use him in my church!
There are people you have very little contact with but the brief contact you do have with them builds you up and encourages you – even if it is just a cheerful and genuine hello. But others can dismiss you and write you off in the briefest of moments. I believe that if we want to seek to “follow Jesus” then we need to seek to build others up and encourage them, not tear then down.
A long time ago I had a sense that parts of the church were like an army marching for victory – only those who could keep in step and “live victoriously” were welcome. Anyone who struggled to keep in step or to “live victoriously” was not welcome and were given no time. But my reading of 1 Corinthians 1-2 suggests that God sees things very differently.
Comment by: Helen
26I agree with you, JG – I read that article and I don’t like the way it encourages leaders to label some people as ‘fleas’. How demeaning! It seems very wrong to me the way the article essentially gives people permission not to care and not to help certain churchgoers by suggesting they label them ‘church-hopping spiritual parasites’
Jesus said “All things are possible with God” and if we’re to follow him then surely we too need to believe that there is hope that everyone can change.
It’s fine for us to choose our priorities and say “I don’t have time to help this person” or to be so honest we say “I don’t want to help”. However, I don’t think Jesus’ statement allows us the option of making absolutely judgments about others such as “That person is unhelpable so I am excused from caring or helping”.
I can envisage making the relative judgment “I will not get involved because I’m unable/unwilling to do what it would take to help this person”. Which is about us as well as them. But not the absolute one which says, I can label them in a way which gives me permission not to care or help.