conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Shhh! Tripp, you better keep such gratitude on the q-t. You don't want to ruin your reputation by bringing my name into the mix, do you?

Apart from the particular context of this sermon as part of the week of prayer for Christian unity, I wonder: do you hold institutional unity as a higher goal than individual relationship to God and the Gospel?

You've really hit the crux of one of my deepest questions about church participation with this. I hope you don't mind my probing further.

Good question, Megan.

For me, I cannot find a way to separate them. I have tried to do the stand-alone faithful person thing. I simply could not do it. It was entirely too lonely for me, too isolating and eventually pointless. It was impossible for me to have a healthy spiritual life as a solitary person with no religious tradition to fall back on.

There have always been solitaries within Christianity. There always will be. The history of the church that I am aware of, however, suggests strongly that these solitaries identified themselves with the Church even as they lived alone. There was no "private faith" so to speak.

The trouble with this in the last 500 years or so is that there are so many streams of the faith to choose from. If you were a solitary 1500 years ago, there were fewer permutations claiming to be The Church. The relationships to the Church were simply different. The Church was simply more monolithic.

Sorry, I am babbling.

The church cannot exist without the faithful individual seeking relationship with God. It is impossible. I would also say that the individual cannot seek God without a community...this is true for no other reason than having people to be Christian with may make the walk more fruitful. Otherwise there is the distinct posibility that the lone person could fall into unhealthy habits and not know it.

Now, I am not suggesting that you have done so. I am just stating the possibility from my own experience. I mixed all sorts of crazy pseudo-cultish mess into my Christianity when I did it alone, without the benefit of a tradition. Simply singing in church regularly and paying attention to what I was singing helped a great deal.

Okay, this is a beginning to an answer. What do you think?

So you can't do it yourself, which I accept as completely legit.

But you frequently run straight to the idea of religions hermits when I bring up the practice of Christianity apart from the institutional Church. And that's not what I'm talking about. Such hermits generally shunned ALL society. I'm talking about living embedded in the world, participating in community of all kinds (see my earlier messages about bus stops, PTAs, grocery stores, etc. let alone families) but not participating in an institutional church.

It's been my experience that lots of churches have lots of members who are not in fact seeking God. And there are lots of people seeking God who are not in churches. But those people are not alone, they are not refusing Community, they're just not in churches. Capisci?

So here, in this quote, "I would also say that the individual cannot seek God without a community...this is true for no other reason than having people to be Christian with may make the walk more fruitful." I see that you contradict yourself.

You say that the individual CANNOT seek God without a community -- but to back it up, all you say is that a Christian-focused community MIGHT make the walk "more fruitful." Not "possible." Did you mean "possible"? And why?

I am not sure, to be honest.

I keep thinking about "religionless christianity" and folk like Bonhoeffer. But even he could not envision Christianity without some kind of gathered community. Life Together is a great book if you ever felt like reading something about Christian community. Bonhoeffer has some strong opinions (some more attributable to taste), but it is interesting.

I would say that you are seeking God with a community. You just do not have a church/congregation as your community.

I do not mean "possible" but I am certain that it is essential. But I can't quite articulate the difference.

I just cannot imagine a community-less Christianity.

Tripp, that's what I'm saying!!! That "community" does not equal "church." And that the practice of Christianity does not require participation in a church.

Why do you keep coming back to me restating my point as though it were not my point?

I am confused.

Where I stumble, I guess, is what I see as your denial of nominal Christian community. To me that is church. I keep going back and forth because I understand you to say that the church (nominal christian community) is a bad thing...or an impossible thing (?). I don't know.

I was trying to understand why you made your initial comment.

I will, some day in all my free time, go through the gospel of Matthew (I like Matt) and find references to the church and Jesus' desire for us to worship together. I recall that you asked me once for Jesus' references to church (nominal Christian community). I will pluck them out. Maybe we can talk about that.

What do you say?

Go ahead, I read Matthew recently. However, I'll tell you now that mere references to the practice of worshiping together will not convince me. Jesus didn't hesitate to give directives and issue commandments when they were what he meant. And I don't recall that he gave any directives or issued any commandments that his followers must join churches.

Meanwhile, it would help me if you would describe what you call my "denial of nominal Christian community" in layperson's terms, if your understanding is somehow different from what I stated above, "And that the practice of Christianity does not require participation in a church."

Let me see if I can clarify further what I mean. I believe that Christianity is essentially the relationship between an individual soul and God. In my experience, many institutional churches actively impede that relationship, with greater or lesser degrees of deliberate departure from the Gospel commandments. At the best, and this is outside my experience, I believe that there can be churches which help their members develop their relationships with God. But all in all, if there were no such thing as churches, I believe that there could still easily be (and would be) such thing as Christians.

I'll just toss in an Anabaptist perspective here: the reason church is necessary to being Christian is that Jesus founded a different type of community from the others in society. He didn't tell people to go reform their institutions from within, he started a new one that included people from all walks of life relating to each other differently than they related outside. The "body of Christ," Paul makes clear, is the church -- no individual can be the whole body. If churches seem essentially the same as the rest of society, then they're failing at their job.

I'm not convinced that Jesus founded a community at all. He gathered a bunch of followers and sent them out into the world to spread the news.

I'm also not convinced that people are supposed to related to each other differently inside a Christian community than they are outside. Is one supposed to be more Christian at church than one is outside? or less?

relate... supposed to relate... apologies for the stray D

"Whenever you gather, do this in remembrance of me." This comes to mind for me. Is this a command to gather? No. Is there an assumption of gathering? I would say yes. Perhaps even an encouragement. For Christ to be present, we gather. For Christ to be remembered, we gather. We are even given a ritual by Christ to perform when we gather.

Unlike some others who post on this blog, I do not think that the church is without sin. I think it is theologically risky ground to assume it is so, because we will mistake individual whim for the proclamation of Truth. So, I have a slightly different preconception/expectation for the church.

Christ asks the rich young man to be perfect, yes, but there is always, especially in Matthew, this idea that the gospel is almost impossibly difficult. Following Jesus will get you killed. Sin will cause us to stumble. This happens individually and institutionally.

Institutional sin seems to have larger implications to me. We can bring up the classic examples of the Crusades or the 700 Club and that is all we need. Sin happens. I am still not certain why the church needs to be sinless any more than an individual does.

I bring up sinlessness not because Megan did but because I think it is a common illusion. We think the church is to be utopia. It cannot be. Christ must come again. That is the fullness of scripture. Yes, we are to be perfect, but in the end, God judges us...not the church, not individuals...God. There is an end time, a Judgment Day. Matthew, for example, is pretty clear about that.

I do find the church helpful in my growth as a Christian. I would not have latched onto it so clearly had I not. But it is no less broken than any one of us...why should it be? I think that may be a false theological expectation of the church. It, like the individual, must seek perfection because all individuals within it are seeking perfection. But it will fail and be judged by God.

Also, The church gave rise to the gospels. Mattheew is written from and for a community of people who gather to take communion and to praise their God. Matthew was not written for individuals kickin' back on their own. That is the historical reality of this conversation as well. Matthew was written for people who already gathered.

Megan, I agree with you comepletely that the individual walk is all things...it is most importatnt. Jesus approached people individually. "Come and follow me." But in the process of calling individuals, he gathered a community around him. He called them to love one another. He asked them to die for one another. He even told them a process of how to forgive one another within the gathered community. The gathered community is assumed by Jesus as well as his followers. God calls a people...through calling individuals, God calls a people. Jesus, as a Jew, perhaps would have understood it that way. He was here to save a nation...calling a city like Jerusalem to repent...he loved the Temple - his Father's house. He bemoaned it's upcoming destruction. He was redeeming institutions as well...

That institutions have failed to live into the Gospel is true. That institutions have oppressed is true. That individuals within the institutions have used its power to keep people from God is true. It is deeply disturbing, scandalous and even cruel. It is Hubris and God will judge them...and us all...for it. Even so, we are gathered...Christ gathers us with "Come and follow me."

Anabaptists have tried different forms of the institution. Heck, this is what the Reformantion is all about. The complaint you raise is not new by any means. But we do gather. Even if casually, to celebrate the Lord's supper. To go out two by two to spread the word.

Okay...I have blathered a bit much now.

Wow. That was long. Sorry.

Just another note: Many of the desert monastics were hermits on behalf of the church, to serve the gathering body. Just an FYI.

Why are you still talking about the desert monastics? You must find them fascinating.

Re "love one another" -- you think Jesus meant only within a church? Wow, that's frightening.

I think Jesus meant, love everyone. No exceptions, no barriers, no hierarchy. Love. Everyone. Period. Doesn't have a thing to do with churches.

And once again, I state, as I have stated before and will continue stating until I have reason to believe it's understood: I don't expect churches to be perfect. I expect them to TRY. I expect them not to be stupid and willfully blind.

Am I judging? Yup. Do I think my judgment is better than God's? Nope. That's why I look to the Gospel for clarity about whether church participation is required. And apparently, from the examples you gave, it's not.

Um, exceuse me for being slow.

Do you think of any gathered Christian community as church?

btw: Love everyone? You bet! No exceptions. But the John passage is addressed to Jesus' followers. It suggests a certain intentionality to the relationships between followers of Christ for me.

I'd say that's a choice on your part, then, and not an interpretation that the passage itself absolutely requires.

Do I think of any gathered Christian community as church... interesting question. I think the answer is Yes, but I'm curious about what other forms of gathered Christian community you can imagine. Isn't "deliberately created community of Christians" the definition of "church"? Off to Merriam-Webster's website to see what I can see...

So a monastery is not a church, though there may be worship, or a church, present.

Hmmm...more thought later.

Is a monastery not a building (def. 1), or not an organized body of religious believers (def. 3)?

Hmm...thus the thinking.

Richmond Hill fits many of the categories, for example, but it is not a church. In fact, we were told that we had to have a church membership somewhere as to keep Richmond Hill from functioning as a church for community members.

So, whenever two or three are gathered there is a church? Jesus says he is there when they gather, but is that church? If it is, then church is unavoidable without suggesting that gathering itself is a problem. Should Christians never gather?

Of course not. That would be both stupid and absurd.

What I'm saying, and finding no Gospel contradiction for, is that Christians don't HAVE to gather insularly with other Christians. And we've discussed that "wherever two or more of you" quotation before. I thought we'd concluded that Christ is also present to the individual in prayer. Didn't we?

I can't discuss Richmond Hill as church or non-church until I know its particular mission. Does it have a website? I'm off to find out.

Spending a little time on the Richmond Hill website was informative. However, I'm troubled by the idea that participants in the Richmond Hill community were *required* to have a church membership elsewhere. Would the community not accept a churchless person?

sORRY TO TAKE SO LING TO GET BACK TO YOU. i H...caps lock. Sorry.

Ahem.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Work called.

Re: The Hill

The rule had more to do with keeping sanity in the ranks. If Richmond Hill became a church for the resident, then it would be serving as ALL THINGS for the individual resident. If, for some reason, the relationships between members in the community became strained, then there would be no where to turn to get space if it were needed. If the community fails you and you have nowhere else to turn...well, there needs to be a healthier option, you know?

I do not know if thsi is a hard and fast rule. If the Spirit were calling a non-churched person to community life that would be discerned in the community and acted upon, I hope, positively. My experience is that they are pretty open there.

Re: church

We have several ordained people at the hospital, a regular worship service and a chapel. Are we a church or a hospital?

Why are you asking?

Well, I am thinking that the definition, though not wrong, is somehow inaccurate...lacking the nuance needed? I dunno.

I don't think that the hospital is a church though it meets almost all of the criteria. I think that intention (discipleship and worship?) matter a great deal. This place, by declaration and intention, is a hospital and not a church.

I just think intention matters. And somehow it bears on our conversation here in ways I cannot quite put my finger on.

Well, I'll confess that I'm less interested in discussing the fine points of what constitutes a church than you and many of your professional colleagues are. I'm still very much interested in discussing the reasons for churches existing, and the relationship between churches and individual Christian believers.

I have been lurking in this conversation for the past few days. I think that the definition of church is essential for disucussing what you wish to discuss Megan. It seems to me, that although Tripp's baptist sensabilities seems to keep him from saying this, the church is essential for a Christians faith because we are not taking about a mere human institution but a spiritual entity created by God.
However, I understand that you see the church as simply an institution or a bunch of institutions.
Furthermore Christianity is not simply about the relationship between an individual and God. In fact your point about love demonstrates this to be the case. Love of God and neighbor. Secondly, Christian faith is about worship, worship that is and always has been corporate and public. Privatized Christianity is the invention of post-reformation enlightement thought in which the individual is seen as the origin of the community. Granted I don't think the reverse is true rather community and individual are each creations of the other.
What is important for Christian theology is that the community that is the church whether local or what can be called the universal or catholic church is God's creation through the identification of persons with Christ in baptism and faith. Whether you find it compeling or not all of Jesus' actions as recorded in the Gospels assume a communal understanding of faith, in which personal responce to God is of necesity. Christianity is Personal, meaning it holds in tension the community and the individual as equaly loci of salvation and relatioship with God. Even God is not a solitary individual according to Christian theology, but a triunity of persons, Father Son and Holy Spirit. Any institution worthy of the name "church" is a creation through Faith baptism and Eucharist of the triune God, who revealed God's self through the incarnation of the Word. To speak to only one polarity of the tension of community and individual is to deny the fullness of Christian teaching and Biblical understanding of human relationships and the relationship between God and humanity.

Or to deny the hegemony of churches, which are human institutions very much engaged with their own survival, wealth and influence.

Not kind, but very accurate to my observation and studies.

Apart from that, there's a lot in your comments to address. Much more than I have time for. So I just want to address this one sentence you wrote:

" Whether you find it compeling or not all of Jesus' actions as recorded in the Gospels assume a communal understanding of faith, in which personal responce to God is of necesity."

Where in the Gospels do you find this assumption articulated? Because if it's not there, in quotable form, then the assumption is just that -- your assumption, which you have chosen and not been compelled into.

Re "love of God and neighbor" -- one doesn't need a church to accomplish this. There are plenty of people out and about, available to love, outside the walls of a church. I've had this conversation with Tripp many a time, in this venue and others.