At the conclusion of my series on the Church in Post-Christendom, I argued that demonstrating the reign of God [or gospel] within a distinct community may be the American church’s greatest challenge to its mission.
I further stressed that this community, in which diverse people, locally and generally, are united by a common love for Christ and each other, is an essential witness to the in-breaking reign of God. In essence, the nonappearance of this “community” renders our acts of service indistinguishable from any other and our proclamation of Jesus shallow and without basis.
What hinders this community is NOT a weakness of the institutional church and its leadership but rather the radical individualism of its members. This is not simply a matter of concern over sporadic church attendance or mediocre participation in the church potluck dinner; this is a central underlying principle, which nullifies the witness of God’s people and opposes the redemptive mission of God!
Observing the ascendancy of radical individualism, Charles Taylor, the acclaimed philosopher and author of Sources of Self pointed out that over the course of the last two centuries “our sources of self-identity have shifted from the external and transcendent to the internal and subjective experience of the individual.” In one sense, as modern societies advanced beyond the necessity of community for shear survival, we gradually and naturally began to transfer our dependency from other people and the local community to technology and ubiquitous governing structures. As our need for other people in order to survive diminished, and as means of transportation and communication evolved; we were less and less bound to our local communities. The bonds of connection and the sense of shared identity were weakened and our reciprocal responsibilities toward others began to evaporate. As an example, for those of you who live in the larger cities; consider how often you see a stranded motorist on the freeway in which hundreds if not thousands of people will pass by without the thought of offering aid. Such a thing would be incomprehensible to those living with this sense of shared identity.
Again, this is not a problem unique to the church in America; it is a fundamental problem within American culture as a whole. For Christians, the problem arises when we fail to recognize the worldly nature of this condition and blindly incorporate it into the church. This would be akin to the church in Corinth trying to assimilate their former pagan practices into their new Christian life and worship. By not subjecting ourselves and the culture from which we spring to biblical scrutiny; we are essentially doing the same thing, which in turn makes us less distinguishable from the world around us. Robert Putnam, Harvard professor and author of the definitive book on the collapse of American community points outs:
…as the twenty-first century opens, Americans are going to church less often than we did three or four decades ago, and the churches we go to are less engaged with the wider community. Trends in religious life reinforce rather than counterbalance the ominous plunge in social connectedness in the secular community. (Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 80, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000)
This is a stinging indictment of the American church by an outsider, demonstrating that we clearly live in the presence of a watching world – a world that longs for that which only Christ can give, whether they realize it or not. And, one of the things all human beings need and long for is love and acceptance by their fellow human beings. We want to belong and when we do; this is community! This innate longing emanates from our imago Dei and its absence exists because of the Fall. It is for remedy that Christ’s victory and reign serves, and it is His body, the church, in which the first fruits of this redemptive work should be seen. Continue >>
Comments
Sorry - I have re-read it and re-read it - trying to see what it is that you are defending.
I can't help but get the sense that Mr. Craven is lamenting the lack of ecumenism when (among other things) he makes a observation such as: "there is also the larger “community” represented by all followers of Christ from various traditions and denominations, which at present is sadly and deeply divided."
As for myself, I do not follow any extra or nonbiblical or man-made traditions, nor adhere to any particular denomination. When people ask "what" I am, my answer is "Christian".
I am led by the Word of God and by His Holy Spirit and accept the admonition of my brothers and sisters in Christ whose grounding in the Word of God, I know can be tested and trusted.
Do I consider it "sad" that some non-specific "christian community" is "deeply divided"? No.
Do I consider it sad that I refrain from fellowship in some sort of contrived unity with others who claim the faith, yet habitually and rebelliously compromise scriptural doctrine? No.
Jesus addressed his prayer in John 17, for unity, to the Father.
For us to lament the seeming reality of our present day situation gives the impression that we must believe:
1. The intended outcome of Christ's prayer has not (or not yet) been realized.
2. The Father is unable or unwilling, within His own abilities, to bring the intended goal of Christ's prayer to fruition and,
3. The responsibility then falls to mankind's (or specifically the church's) shoulders to see that the Christ's prayer is answered as it is understood by men.
I reject all three statements.
So if you want to hold to the idea that "together we can solve the problem of creating a church that presents a unified front to the world if we just pool our ideas" - instead of submitting all things to God in prayer, you go right ahead.
I'll be the one praying that "God's will be done".
I don't think Mr. Craven is following Charles Taylor theologically at all. He quotes Taylor on the subject of individualism, i.e. "our sources of self-identity have shifted from the external and transcendent to the internal and subjective experience of the individual." This is a very true statement relative to American culture that has nothing to do with any theological assertions. To Quecat, I think you need to read the article again because you have clearly failed to comprehend it. Furthermore to suggest that the church is not a "distinct community" is both ridiculous and unbiblical. With all due respect, your demand for a "proof text" reveals more about what you don't know than how to do proper biblical theology. The issues raised by Craven are of profound importance to the church and in no way associated with what you perceive, or label, as liberal ecumenism. The "community" to which Craven is referring is clearly that of orthodox confessing Christians. Again, you either ignored or failed to comprehend the thesis of this article. If you are going to offer criticism, you need to be both fair and much more theologically precise. Presently, your diatribe only serves as a further source of division.
JOHN 17:21 – "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
The modern ecumenical movement has taken John 17:21 as one of its theme verses, claiming that the unity for which Christ prayed is an ecumenical unity of professing Christians which disregards biblical doctrine. The context of John 17 destroys this myth. In John 17 the Lord plainly emphasizes that the unity He desires is one based on salvation and Truth. It is not a unity of true Christians with the false. It is not a unity which ignores doctrinal differences for the sake of an enlarged fellowship. (1) The unity of John 17 is a God-created unity (John 17:11). There is nothing in Christ's prayer to indicate that man is to do anything whatsoever in an attempt to create the unity described herein. John 17 is a prayer addressed to God the Father, not to men. It is not something man needs to do; it is something God has already done. The prayer was answered almost 2,000 years ago. It is a spiritual reality which was created by God among genuine believers who are committed to the Scriptures, not a possibility which must be organized by man. (2) The unity of John 17 is a unity in truth (vv. 17,19,6,8,14). Christ repeatedly stated that He was praying for those who love and obey the Word of God. This is certainly not a prayer which contemplates the modern ecumenical crowd which downplays and ignores the Word of God for the sake of a broad, lowest-common-denominator unity.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/john17.htm
Again - I'm still waiting on specific scripture(s) quotes that back up the conclusion: "Christians living within a distinct community is an essential witness to the mission of God."
In the mean time, how exactly would you define that "community"? Everything that calls itself by the name "Christian", is NOT Christian.
2Cr 6:14-16a "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God.."
Are God-fearing Christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrant "whole counsel of God" by which we live our lives, to accept (for example) the fellowship of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Are God-fearing Christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrant "whole counsel of God" by which we live our lives, to accept the fellowship of "christians" who support abortion?
Are God-fearing Christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrant "whole counsel of God" by which we live our lives, to accept the fellowship of "christians" who regard the scriptures as less than inspired, fraught with error and who equivocate over what is and what is not sin?
At which point did your "no" turn into a "yes" - and if it did so, what is your reasoning behind compromising the Word of God?
The problem is most our churches are not functional communities. It is the rare moment during the week when I bump in to a member from my church. Most of us live, work and worship in different un-connected communities. I know the church has recognized the issue and have come up with programs such as small groups to try to connect people but often these programs are based on "numbers" and become another tool for growing the church. The best example I have seen in churches is the senior ministries. These are folks who come to depend on one another for assistance such as rides to events, medical appointments, bible studies, basic companionship and tips on where to find the cheapest sr. discounts in town. Most will call another member if they do not hear from them to make sure they are all right. And in the end, they all mourn the passing of someone from their group.
Funny thing about the Bible, it also states that we are all part of the same body and that we are all to work together. When one part hurts, we all hurt or is that not in your Bible? Sounds quite collective doesn't it?
That isn't unity just for the sake of unity. It shows that we don't work correctly (if at all) if we are not working together under His commands.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
I usually agree with some of Mr. Craven's writing, but not today.
He draws the basis for his argument from who? Scripture? No, Mr. Charles Taylor, a well-known Catholic philosopher and author - who is part and parcel of the self-same institution that presently and historically argues that the need for unity should outweigh concerns about correct doctrine. His is not an objective opinion of the matter at hand, at all.
In following Mr. Taylor, Mr Craven has come the conclusion that: "Christians living within a distinct community is an essential witness to the mission of God".
Oh?
What is your biblical basis for this assertion?
My Bible informs me that:
2Cr 5:17 "Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ"
Mat 28:19-20 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.."
You'll note that 2 Cor 5:20 did not say that "We are AN ambassador", communally. It says that "WE", individually ARE AMBASSADORS for Christ.
These pleas for unity for the sake of unity alone are getting rather old.