Posted by Helen on: 01.30.2007 /
Jason Clark and Paul Mayers kindly invited me to be a guest blogger on Jason’s blog today. Jason Clark. This is what I posted on there.
I value relationships, period. This is specifically about why I think Christians should value them
John Armstrong recently wrote about the value of relationship. In the entry before that he shares a choice which to me implicitly highlights the importance of relationship. He mentions taking time to write to one prisoner even though the question arose in his mind: “Why am I doing this when there are so many more important things to be done today that could reach hundreds more people?”
I think a follower of Jesus who chooses to spend time on/with one person is on safe ground because Jesus often did that, according to the gospels. I might be wrong but I think Jesus made that choice because when you do something one-on-one for/with a person you are entering into some sort of relationship with them. He evidently believed that adds value which can’t be added any other way.
According to the Bible Paul wrote a number of letters to groups of people far away. Mass communication from an almost-stranger you have no personal contact with is not very relational. If Paul had been content with this I would conclude he didn’t value relationships very highly. However, he wasn’t at all content. He longed to visit the people he wrote to. When I read everything in Paul’s letters (not just the parts about how to be a good Christian) Paul comes across to me as very relational. Which surprised me at first, but maybe it shouldn’t have, because maybe that was one reason why Jesus chose him to be so influential in the early church.
The conservative evangelical Christian church bases their belief system around “a personal relationship with Jesus”. This would seem to imply that they understand the value of relationship. However, I don’t think they do because they so often embrace methods which are not relational. Huge churches and Christian radio and TV (and non-interactive use of the Internet) undermine the relational context in which all “church’ used to happen. I think there is a huge cost to that which the church has not fully understood.
The content of their message is “Nothing is as important as your relationship with Jesus” while the method implies “Relationship with other people is not important”. I find this mixed message profoundly disturbing. Biblically speaking, it is a mixed message because the Bible doesn’t support a separation between relationship with God and relationships with other people. According to the gospels Jesus said “love God” and “love your neighbor” are “like”. In 1 John, the author wrote that someone who hates his brother cannot love God. Throughout the Old Testament loving God is inextricably linked with being kind to people in need.
One particularly bad idea, I think, is the recent trend towards satellite church service which show part or all of the service from the original location on a big video screen. When I first heard about this it felt wrong to me and now I understand why. It’s so anti-relationship to prefer a person on a screen to someone you can actually talk to. I see why church attenders might prefer a more proficient speaker on a screen to a less proficient one in person. My guess is that these are the people who’d never talk to the speaker even if he or she were there in person. What mystifies me is why church leaderships cater to this, in effect implying “relationship with the speaker has no value, so he (or she) may as well just be a face on a screen’. What happened to the Biblical concept of people sharing their lives with one another?
As I think about why I left church, the lack of relational value it had for me was a primary reason. There were little to no relational opportunities afforded me by a worship service. Except the possibility of improving my relationship with God/Jesus. But a few years ago I decided the only doable way for me to pursue that relationship is indirectly (through the way I live my life and my relationships with other people). Attending a service offered so few indirect opportunities that that decision meant it wasn’t worth my while going anymore.
I would like to see the church return to methods which are more inherently relational, thereby restoring the emphasis on relationship which I find in the Bible from beginning to end.
Comment by: ncxian
1Helen wrote:
For several reasons, I have attended a non-litugical church for about 10 years, after having been raised with liturgy. I have to admit that I still do not really understand the point of non-liturgical worship. It seems to me that liturgy provides a relationalness that is missing from non-liturgical services. When a group worships together using liturgy, there is something of a mystical bond with the people in the room, with others beyond the walls who are using the same liturgy, with people who have “passed on” (the “communion of the saints”) and so on. There is also an essential “call and response” aspect to liturgy that, I think, elevates the participation of the audience.
The liturgy also, I think, takes some of the focus and weight off of the sermon, and the person who presents it. The service is not all about the message of the morning–the prayers, songs, readings and all being designed around that message. The message is designed to compliment the readings for the day, that are being read worldwide by the broader fellowship of the Body of Christ. So there is no point to piping in the most proficient speaker, or having a coliseum sized auditorium so that everybody can hear the speaker. A thought provoking reflection on the day’s lesson is nice, but it is just a bonus, it’s not why you get up on Sunday morning. And so, I think, a desire to interact with the “speaker” wouldn’t be a big deal. What speaker . . . you know?
I realize that liturgy is not everybody’s cup of tea, and that it must be learned by people who come into without a certain level of familiarity, so it is not immediately accessible to a newcomer. So I’m not suggesting that every church must be liturgical. I am saying, though, that I think your objections, Helen, may be somewhat more applical to non-liturgical settings.
Comment by: ncxian
2Oh, I forgot to ask the question I had in mind, Helen. (If it’s not too personal). I can see that your objections to the way worship was done would lead you to not want to participate in worship. Did that experience with the form of worship negatively impact the whole church experience for you? Or did it, perhaps, represent what you saw as a problem that permeated every aspect of that church’s life? I know from having read other posts that you were involved in several different areas in your church so it seems to me that you had a broader understanding of “church” at that point, and did not see it as the equivalent of “worship service”. Were your expectations for developing relationships within your faith community not met during other encounters than the Sunday morning worship service?
Comment by: Helen
3NCxian wrote:
When my beliefs changed that put distance between me and other people in the church. Because either I didn’t talk about it or if I did, they didn’t really understand and were concerned.
That wasn’t a problem that meeting in different ways could fix.
It’s interesting to me that you like liturgy so much. I understand what you’re saying about it but it never did anything for me. I think I was familiarized with it in the wrong context: in high school, where I didn’t believe any of it but had to attend weekly chapel services. I went to that school because it was supposed to be a very good one; it happened to be an Anglican school, hence the services.
Do you occasionally get to go to a liturgical service? I hope so since that’s what you like best.
Comment by: ncxian
4Occasionally, when I visit my parents or participate in some function that takes place at another church.
I guess one of the reasons that I am happy in my faith community despite the fact that the worship doesn’t suit me is that I value the relationships above all else. So I agree with you about that–I suppose I’m living it!
Comment by: ZooMuse
5Your excellent comments also underscore the reality that people should not be viewed as having “saved-by dates” hanging over their heads (or stamped on their bums). By this I am referring to the all-too-common evangelical practice of building a “relationship” with someone with the unstated intention/agenda of seeing them “come to Jesus.” In the case that these people do not respond quickly enough (or ever), that “relationship” is dropped and another started. We have the privilege to enter into relationships with people simply because that is in the nature of God.
Comment by: Jason Clark » The value of relationship
6 01/31/07 12:16 PM | Comment Link |[...] I posted this on my personal blog a couple of weeks ago (and am posting it on CatE today). In reposting it here I realize I might be ‘preaching to the choir’ somewhat, since some of you are already exploring different ways of ‘doing church’ that are more relational than what I’ve been used to. [...]