Does this sound familiar? In any typical week I will get a pile of invites from people wanting Gateway Church to get involved in their project or attend their event. A pastor friend writes,
I've got good relationships with the other ministers in town, but there is a strange view of ecumenism/unity in the churches here that if we work at doing stuff together and understanding one another then everything in the world will be lovely. That's a little tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.
There is clearly a theology of unity and blessing that underpins this. I find the constant pressure to take part in things that in my view are fruitless missionally, and the subsequent perspective that we do not value or desire unity, very frustrating.
There is a lot to unpack here, but my response would be something along the following lines:
1. The starting point would be how we understand the sovereignty of God. For example, we could turn the question around and ask it this way, "Are you saying that if we don't jump onboard with this that God will keep his blessing from the town? Is that really your view of how God works?" Asking the question this way can help demonstrate how a simplistic reading of “How good it is when brothers dwell together in unity” is an inadequate way to develop a theology of God’s sovereignty and blessing.
2. We should also be theologically convinced that when Jesus prayed in his high priestly prayer that “they might all be one” this was accomplished through the work of the cross. All believers are one because we are all united with and in Christ. There then needs to be some visible outworking of this, but I think often we concentrate far too much on the “there are so many denominations and different churches which is a sign of our division” and not enough on “we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body” – our oneness is already real in Christ, and we don’t all need to be working on the same projects to prove it.
3. When discussing these type of issues I often use the analogy of a human family, saying something like, "We want people in other families to be blessed, and we often have other people in our homes and visit other people in theirs, but at the end of the day, Grace & I are primarily responsible to and for one another and for our kids. It’s a bit like that with churches – we want to bless every other Jesus loving, gospel preaching church in town, and will sometimes do things with them, but God has given me a responsibility for this family, and that means we can't always do everything that everyone else is doing." This naturally leads to a discussion about the nature and role of elders in the church, and the loyalty and commitment of church members to the church they are part of.
4. Following on from this I would want to explain that, "We are not here primarily to do projects – there are specific things we value and specific things we feel called to do. In faithfulness to God we want to be faithful to those things." This then begs the question about the existence of your church – in the end we have to say, "We believe we have a unique contribution to make here." If this is not the case you should just shut down and go join another church!
5. This sense of unique contribution then leads to saying, "It is important for us that we are focused on what we are doing, otherwise we might just bounce from thing to thing without actually achieving much." Those churches that are being obviously fruitful tend to be those churches which are obviously focussed and purposeful in what they are doing.
6. Of course, a problem with being focussed is that this focus can get misinterpreted as exclusivity. In part this just has to be toughed out, but there is also some leadership wisdom that has to be shown in making it clear our desire is to bless other people, while not having our time and energy diverted by everything they would like us to get involved in.
7. Finally, this is an area that church leaders can easily be emotionally bullied over and made to feel guilty about – in which case we need to remember that we are under grace not law, and that we are ultimately answerable to Jesus, not to men.
What’s your experience? What so you do with all those invites that end up on your desk?
3 comments:
I guess I look at it and say - the unity Jesus talks about is relational unity so there has to be some real-world relationship happening...
But, the point of that is to build the local church not just to be nice.
And then that there are probably different kinds of local/trans-local relationships I might have...
Some are mutually beneficial, some are me giving away my best for free, some are me receiving from others the things they have but I lack. Probably I'd want to have some of each of those... but I can't be everyone's best friend.
And then to be secure that I'm a receiver and giver, and happy to build fruitful relationships but equally have to keep on with what God has for me to be doing.
(or at least that was the perspective I tried to bring at the Mobilise Student Worker Weekend..)
A couple of thoughts.
1. Agree with most of what you are saying, however, it's interesting that the discussion on "unity" seems to primarily come to the fore in response to a request by "someone" to take part in "their thing". In this context, the terms of reference are primarily reactive, and to some extent apologetic - explaining why we/you "don't" take part in that particular "thing".
2. Perhaps the discussion - and therefore the perception of exclusiveness - could be improved by pro-actively articulating (through preaching initially) what you positively believe about unity. Articulating your first two points, for instance, could help raise the terms of the debate in a number of positive ways.
3. I'm guessing that you would agree that apostles, prophets and their like have a central role in the outworking of the unity of the faith (Eph 4, etc).
4. I observe a difference between towns and cities with regard to this issue. I was impressed by Tim Keller's brief presentation at Lausanne 2010 on the issue of city-wide church/co-operation, for instance, in which he positively argues for both diversity in expression of church as well as meaningful networks of life, support and (specialist) ministry as key components of reaching modern mega-cities. Suburban or small town churches tend to think less of these matters, in my observation, appearing more content to do their own thing.
I guess a couple of observations - the 'good relationship' mentioned at the start doesn't seem to extend far enough to embrace the freedom to say 'I think that's fruitless missionally' and so it may be a case of friendly but shallow.
We should beware that the actions outlined aren't rightly interpreted as exclusivity and that is best avoided by being connected to something!
We've benefited from others being generous and supporting us and our initiatives and so we want the same spirit to help in building the church across the town even when it doesn't always benefit us.
What I'm saying is there is freedom to say NO and also to say YES.
Post a Comment