Getting to the Heart of the Matter
hil Hawkins has been doing some excellent commenting here on this blog of late. And sometimes comments are just too good to stay buried in the comments section of the blog. While I don’t seek to exalt any one person above another on this blog (save Jesus!), I just had to put this comment in its entirety up here on the front page for all to read.
To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.
Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:
Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadershipor
(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.
Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!
How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?
If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?
I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.
And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.
To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?
Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.
Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.
Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.
Until next time,
steve 
September 2nd, 2007 21:43
Steve, thanks for the gracious response. Sometimes I feel bad about getting so windy on someone else’s site. I did steal the item back and post it on my own blog (with a link to yours). [Steve adds: Phil, I made it into a link for you, bro, since you were having difficulty with it.]
I hadn’t been writing much on my blog lately, July and August were a busy time for me workwise. Then when I got back home after a couple of weeks working out of town, our computer died. We now have a new Mac, and I’m getting the hang of some things. Maybe I can get back to blogging more regularly. (And maybe someday I’ll learn to do links that work!)
September 3rd, 2007 00:41
Very well stated. I think we are learning and thus teaching others how to abide in everyone except Jesus Christ… from the pastor to the famous author to the theology professor to the patristics to our denominational leaders.
Abide in Christ.
-Alan
September 3rd, 2007 04:47
Steve,
I have spent most of my sixty eight years involved in the life of the established church. I believe that Phil is writing what the Holy Spirit is saying to those who would heed His voice. Three a.m this morning,on the opposite side of the world, I could not eliminate similar thoughts from my mind, finally rising to commit them to blogdom.
I don’t believe in coincidences.
Aussie John
September 3rd, 2007 08:47
Phil,
I can’t help but wonder if it is something else besides our laziness, though I know what you have stated about this is true. We say we have faith because we have made the decision to trust in the cross and thereby gain our salvation. However, often we fail to have faith in a living relationship with an in-dwelling Spirit of Jesus. Do we fear the connection with God, or somehow doubt that such could really be part of the package?
We have faith enough to pray for things materially we think need to happen in our lives and the lives of those around us. Why do we back off from a deep expression of love and security in one another’s hearts? Judging one another (Steve’s original post), not just over issues of doctrines but generally, is deeply ingrained into both our human experience and likewise in our Christian, corporate experience. I see this as fear and a lack of faith. The remedy: move in faith. Regardless of the issue, we must come to embrace each and every life circumstance believing and doing what is recorded Jesus said pertaining to that circumstance (a common and needed exhortation heard within organized-church pulpit instruction), AND by looking within and hearing what our conscience, alive in Christ, is saying for us particularly in that moment. Such obedience can be in conflict with group expectations and here our fear kicks in. The key is to recognize what is the Spirit of Christ within us and not our own deep training in religion. Life in Jesus is the great adventure–full of surprise, reward, challenge and always, always love.
September 3rd, 2007 12:16
Good post based on a comment. When I have some time I’m all over this!
September 3rd, 2007 14:33
If my Christianity is getting a guaranteed eternal reward for having once “decided” to “believe in Jesus,” then going to church frequently (not every time the doors are open; that would be legalistic!) to listen, kinda, to the pastor describe doctrines and denounce sins peripheral to me, well, that seems like an acceptable use of my time. Besides, I enjoy the music, and it’s a safe place to store the kids.
Or if I see thru all that superficial socializing, I could stay home and parse bible verses so that I would really know doctrine.
Is a failure to develop a living relationship with God an issue of laziness? I’d say: partly. Other parts include, frankly, lack of real introduction to the living God (a God not limited to what we hear or read). Other parts include economy: if what I want is the free ticket or doctrinal expertise, why invest more resources than what’s necessary? The reason we pray for material things but not deep expressions of love, I’m guessing, is because we want the former a lot more than we want the latter. Which is a function of another part:
That part is self-centeredness: God gets some of my consciousness throughout the week, but I need my space when it comes to driving in traffic, focusing on getting my task completed in the presence of distractions, enjoying the Victoria’s Secret commercials, contemplating more things I could buy, etc.
A related part is convenience: When I recognize someone with whom I should have a more loving relationship, the most convenient things to do are buy them something or give them a few moments of time. Such gestures are easy to do and point to as proof and can be quite similar to buying a book about God or a fish for my car.
If I want a better relationship with my wife, I do need the occasional lectures on beam-in-my-eye and listening-isn’t-waiting=to-talk, but of course Phil is correct that the key ingredient is spending time with her.
The Cal part of my Calvinian theology (or is it the vinian part of my Arvinian theoplgy?) tells me that are a lot of un-elect filling the pews, and that excuses them. And the evangelical orientation of many church leaders explains the focus on easy access to a religious experience.
But nothing excuses the elect. Those who have real relationships with our living God have no excuse for failing to nurture it. ded identifies what happens: “our fears kick in.” When no one else is walking on the water with us, we (I) say — this is nuts, and that’s when I start to sink. Perfect faith casts out fear. (Yes, I know — that’s not the quote, but another issue is what is the content of faith? How is faith actualized?)
September 4th, 2007 11:56
So, If I can’t attend a worship and praise service on Sunday morning because I should be spending “alone” time with God, then can I take the time to read other people’s thoughts on these blogs? If spending time with other Christians in praise and adoration, and listening to someone else’s ideas and thoughts is a waste of time and then I must conclude that reading other people’s thoughts on a blog equates to the same thing.
I realize that there are a lot of problems in the “institutional” church, but there are also some good things and people who are truly seeking God.
When we talk about revolution, it doesn’t always mean a complete destruction of what we are trying to change. If you think about it, simple/house church is still a group of Christians meeting together with a common purpose.
Jesus call to be more righteous than the Pharisees didn’t call for the destruction of the Temple or the doing away with sacrifices. It had to do with the heart. It had to do with why, not how.
Phil is right that the basic problem is in a personal relationship to Jesus, but we need to be careful in deciding where God can reach a soul. If we say there is only one way or one place where he can reach us, we place the same boundaries that have been set for centuries in the “institution.”
Just some thoughts!
Live by Faith
September 4th, 2007 12:56
Some thoughts.
September 4th, 2007 16:31
I think Terry has made an excellent point and I’d like to comment on it. He says, “If you think about it, simple/house church is still a group of Christians meeting together with a common purpose.” Yes! And this can lead us to the same conclusions of the institutional church: That the Church is the meetings.
I have to be honest. I’m more of a simple churcher at heart, but I really don’t have any beef with believers who prefer to gather on Sunday mornings in a building and do things in a traditional way. God is moving on both sides of this “divide”. So, whatever.
The issue I have is not “What kind of model is right?” but rather, what kind of Covenant are we living in? If we understanding the church as meetings (and what ’sacrifices and offerings’ takes place in meetings), then we are living in the Old Covenant of synagogue and temple. And we tend to feel as though we are fulfilling our function (as the Church) in the world if we attend meetings (whether in a home or a building). As some have already pointed out, that’s easier, we can be lazy and not take personal responsibility to develop our personal relationship with God. But, if we understand the Church as the people - and I see myself as a human temple created to be a conduit of worship and love for God (first commandment), and as His temple, carry Him to those outside of His rule and authority (second commandment), then I’m starting to fulfill my function as the Church….
September 4th, 2007 17:38
I appreciate the desire for discussion in the preface that Steve provides for Phil’s post. As a member of what would certainly be considered to be an institutional church (I am a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America) I do not assume that we don’t have, as brothers and sisters in Christ, much to learn from each other. The church of Christ is far bigger than any denomination or movement. It seems to me that Phil’s opening question “What is Christianity?” starts us off in a direction that may not be best for real discussion. The question almost calls for an “us verses them” (those that have the correct understanding of what Christianity is as opposed to those who don’t). A better question might be “What does obedience to Jesus demand of us in our life with Him as well as our lives with one another?” A sub text of this question might be “How is it that we can so easily go so far wrong?” These questions acknowledge that we are fellow travelers. Some of the things in the life of the institutional church that Phil seems to object to are done as attempts to do what Jesus calls us to do. These attempts can and do go laughably wrong. Assigning the failure to laziness or not hearing God’s Spirit is a judgment of the heart that I believe should only be made with great caution.
September 4th, 2007 20:44
Man! I just read your blog for the first time, Steve. This is some deep stuff.
How about those Mountaineers!!
concerning the blog at hand…
I don’t think there are simply a and b situations. I guess I need to go back and read all the other blog entries and do my homework.
Trust me, I have seen some hardcore ‘a’ churchs that weren’t pretty.
However, I have seen ‘b’ in a church setting that meets in a common building and in homes. Am I the only one?
It seems like that the pattern was set in Acts 2:42-47.
September 4th, 2007 22:00
Craig, I would say your question, “What does obedience to Jesus demand of us in our life with Him as well as our lives with one another?” is the same as what Phil asks Christians when he says, “What is Christianity?” Phil is not looking for doctrine so much as he is looking for practice. Is he judgmental in blaming laziness? Well, he’s free to judge me, because I confess: I’m too lazy for my own good (and it sure seems like I have company).
And Craig’s question is refined by Sarah’s: “What kind of Covenant are we living in?” And she, I believe, is not looking for doctrine, either. She’s discussing the covenantal consequences for the practice of Christianity. Is Christianity (or does obedience mean) meeting for the purpose of sacrifice, offering, and, I’d add, defining the don’t-do’s, or does it mean the living out of God’s love in daily relationships, with periodic assemblies for worship and encouragement?
Just as Paul notes that people will worship the creation and ignore the Creator, the topic du jour here notes that we are susceptible to focusing on the assembly at the expense of the covenant. If it does — and I think all participants here agree it does — we need to address it, at least for ourselves.
September 4th, 2007 23:02
George,
The difference I mean to bring out between the two questions is not that I see one as focusing on doctrine while the other does not, but that one places us all in search mode to seek what Jesus is calling us to while the other seems to assume that only one of us has it right (whether right is seen in terms of practice or teaching). I also have no problems with Phil concluding that I’m lazy (I also wrestle with this). Where I think greater caution is called for is to assume (as it seems to me Phil does) that an institutional church practice like preaching is adopted out of laziness or out of a refusal to hear the Spirit. This seems to accuse more people than necessary of having the vice (laziness) that you and I share. Love requires, our Lord requires, that we not make false or misleading judgments about our brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m not saying that there aren’t real differences between us or that we should sugar coat those difference. I’m saying that before we get to a criticism of differences we should first make sure that we’ve done the hard task of truly listening to one another. If my brother or sister does not recognize himself or herself in my criticism how is that any different than the sort of thing Steve’s original complaint (How not to judge someone’s orthodoxy) addressed?
September 5th, 2007 00:19
Everyone, I’m sorry I haven’t been around to join in the discussion. New show opens tomorrow, so Monday and Tuesday of this week were “tech days” — noon to midnight rehearsals.
There’s been some really good discussion here, and some good points have been raised. I do understand the concern many are expressing about the dichotomy. Please notice that I mentioned that in my introduction to Phil’s comments!
Part of the reason I liked Phil’s comment so much, however, was not because I totally agree with the dichotomy presented, but because overall, I believe that Phil is on the right track with the question.
Yes, it’s a bit of a both/and, but I think that Phil was expressing things in a either/or fashion in a way that makes us think about the other side a bit better.
That’s all I have time for tonight, but carry on…
steve
September 5th, 2007 00:23
Oh, and Robin Steele, great to see you here, my brother! I would be surprised if you don’t disagree with some of what’s written here, but like everyone else, you are quite welcome to join the discussion and chip in your point of view, too!
When it boils down, those of us who are serving Christ and in a relationship with him are all on the same team, so welcome.
September 5th, 2007 00:30
“Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.”
But does the New Testament say that is what we are supposed to do? Does it claim to be the only useful instruction book? Just looking at it from a practical point of view, is it possible? We view the Scriptures through the lens of our culture and it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid that? Just you and your Bible (or me and mine)? God save us all!
“To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?”
So,is your group (unlike other Christian groups) doing this? For that matter, did the early church do this? Rodney Stark has written much about this matter as a sociologist, and I think his ideas might surprise you.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/product-description/0060677015
MB
September 5th, 2007 04:07
I agree that we aren’t looking to duplicate 1st century church, as it is impossible due to the difference in cultural context. But again, maybe models aren’t the point. Perhaps our instructions do lie in the New Testament, but maybe they’re in red, and have more to do with relationships (both with God and each other) in a “how to BE church” (and be a conduit of the Kingdom of God) rather than with “how to do church.”
For me, I would like to duplicate the commitment unto death exhibited by the first Christians, and the unequivocal commitment to one another exhibited by the apostolic leadership. That’s the part I want to emulate, and believe it’s possible in today’s context.
Is my group doing this (transforming the culture, non-believers coming to Christ in droves)? Nope. Not even close. But I’m completely unsatisfied with that state of affairs. I don’t think barrenness is normal Christianity. And I’ve been praying for God to heal my barrenness. Because I’ve been provoked by Christians who are seeing these things. (Books like: The Heavenly Man, which is all about the underground church in China, and There’s Always Enough, about Iris ministries in Mozambique). And then there are historical examples that inspire me as well. I’m not satisfied with the status quo, and that’s the first step…
September 5th, 2007 09:16
What a great discussion.
Sarah, I agree one hundred percent. Christianity is about being. It is about who we are and who we belong to. That’s why Jesus said the first and greatest command is to “love the Lord your God.”
The “doing” part, I think relates to the second command to “Love you neighbor as yourself.” We learn to love ourselves because of what Jesus has done, not because we are anything great. As we begin to see how much he cares for us, it teaches us how to care for others.
What we do when we come together in an assembly is simply a small part of the whole idea of being church. I see the main reason for the assembly as encouragement of each other. I think one of the main problems we face in assemblies is that we come with our consumerism mindset of “what do I get out of this?” Instead, if we have the mind of Christ, it should be what can I give or add to the assembly? How can I serve or who can I encourage?
It seems to me that the whole idea of the Christ life is to give ourselves away to someone else. First to Jesus and our Father, then to others. Do I do this or does the group I assemble with do this? I try but often fail. No excuses, just fact. Thank God for his grace and the blood of Jesus that covers my failures and weaknesses.
Craig V., AMEN brother. It is time we stop judging each other and start working toward the unity Jesus prayed for.
September 5th, 2007 19:39
Maybe this formula works:
If (b) is greater than (a)
……then the activities of (a) would always be in subjection to (b)
Else [(b) is not greater than (a)]
……then (a) slowly consumes (b) until (b) dies
Endif
Not saying that I believe in formulas or anything like that
September 5th, 2007 21:55
Sorry I’ve been out of the loop for a few days–I’m helping my son re-roof the house he bought this spring, a foreclosed fixer-upper that he got cheap. Long days in hot sun.
To ded and others: The “laziness” factor is something we all are subject too, and have to work against. One name for the overall condition would be “fallen human nature”–the spiritual laziness is only part of it. In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis made the comment (This is not an exact quote, I’m too tired to run downstairs, find my copy and rummage around to find the right page–but this is the approximate wording) “We are such half-hearted creatures, pottering about with alcohol and sex, when eternal joy is offered us.” On another facet of FHN, someone somewhere made the statement, and I think he’s right, that “Legalism is the natural state of fallen man.” (And for anyone who is wondering, my views on man and the effects of the Fall on him are the result of 37 years of reading Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. I’ve said for years that I read Lewis for his understanding and expression of Christianity, and Schaeffer for his understanding of the culture we live in–the irony of that is that Schaeffer had the theological education and Lewis’ academic field was literature.
Bob, I have had some training in math and in logic, and I think your formula is a good brief summation. But the second part is what happens most of the time, at least in my observations.
MB, as a matter of fact, I have been part of a church that made quite a stir in its metropolitan area, the Vineyard Community Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Over a period of 20 years they went from 37 people meeting in homes to about 6000, besides planting 20 churches along the way (not all of those plants survived, but they learned from it and have been doing better). All the snide remarks people like to make about megachurches–forget it, they don’t apply to this one. They don’t water down the gospel, there is no personality cult centered around the pastor (When we started attending, the founding pastor’s vehicle of choice was a ten-year-old Ford pickup, and his office was a folding table in his basement at home.) and the staff make fun of each other, including the senior pastor, all the time. When they finally bought land to build their present facility, the first thing they did was find a struggling minority church and gave them $30,000 to finish their building. When they moved into their new building, they gave the old one away to another church rather than sell it for the million dollars it was worth. Their benevolence program is one of the largest and most comprehensive in the city. They constantly partner with churches in poor neighborhoods to help them do things they otherwise could not manage. (At least one of those churches has joined the Vineyard Association because of their relationship). To celebrate their twentieth anniversary as a church, they gave away $20,000–every month for a year. I could go on and on, but to sum it up: they weren’t trying to be a megachurch, the founding group just wanted to have a healthy church; but because they did some things right they ended up with tremendous growth (and 60% of their people were unchurched when they came to the Vineyard). If God had not called us to other things, we would probably be there still. It is the best IC I have seen in 57 years of life.
I know this is too long (Steve, if this is a problem just delete what you have to and maybe I’ll put some of it up on my blog). I know there are some of you who have concerns with what I said that I haven’t gotten to–I’m sorry, but it’s late and I’m tired–and my wife needs the computer to check on a shipment coming in for work tomorrow. Good night.
September 6th, 2007 13:44
Sarah and Terry — excellent commentary. When I saw the following on It Takes A Church, I thought it complemented Sarah’s original point nicely, and now I see it goes well with a lot that’s been said since.
“All life is sacred. If we just see it, all of life is sacred… The Christian life is not to do sacred things, but to do all things in a sacred way.”— Howard E. Butt, Jr.
And Phil — thanks for relating the great example set by the Cincinnati Vineyard church.
September 10th, 2007 11:00
The vineyard is an interesing example in light of the consideration of the plight of North American cities. The vineyard sounds to be like a city on a hill in Ohio. I am saying the situation in the American church is not, (a) has eliminated (b). Or take the Call for another example, a ministry partnering denominations and generations to fast and pray for America. After gathering 70,000+ to fast in Nashville these brethren are joining with the Las echurch to “take the city” with massive prayer and fasting to the point of changing the city’s name so that it will no longer be called “sin city” This type of spiritual action is not coming from a stagnated institution but a vibrant organism. I believe we are in the midst of major transformation in America’s experience of church. Part of this the movement out of (a) but I dont think we will find (b)only in homes.
September 10th, 2007 11:07
I would like to add that Phil’s post was an excellent depiction of far too mauch Christian experience. But rather than having (a) eliminate (b) lets consider God in our midst and (b) eliminating (a)
September 10th, 2007 21:59
Josiah, I am aware of points of light in a lot of places around the US; a few I’ve been privileged to be part of, most I’ve only heard of. I do try to keep my ear to the ground. On the other hand, I am unfortunately aware of places where the churchgoers not only have no clue that any such things are going on, if they do find out about them, they strongly disapprove! (Check out some of the “heresy hunters” websites and see what they say about some of the things you’re involved in.)
My father-in-law is a retired pastor. My wife and I dislike visiting their church; for us it feels like a trip back to the mid-1970s. But right after he retired he did some supply preaching, and came back muttering about this church that he felt was stuck back in the 1950s!
As far as my having “too much” Christian experience–I didn’t set out to get it, it just ended up that way. Some of it I would call “church” experience rather than dignify it by calling it “Christian.” We never left the church, unlike a lot of Boomers; but the Lord led us through some unusual places along the way.
As far as (b) eliminating (a), personally, I’d love to see it; but in terms of what is, out of some 200,000 Protestant churches in this country (George Barna’s number, as I recall it) I’d guess that 75% are primarily (a), and many of those are not even aware that (b) is an option or even desirable. (Including the pastors as well as the members). Click on the link to my blog at the top of this thread and you’ll find a post I wrote on Sunday about things that happened in the area we lived in about 12 years ago. I’ve had online discussions with people who reject most of what is currently happening–including some Lutherans who seem to think there hasn’t been any decent worship music written since 1700.
September 11th, 2007 11:15
Phil,
You are certainly right about the majority nature of the Amercian church. In fact, I attend a traditional Babtist with some at risk youth, but often feel they get more negative than positive; ie the Pastor shares Scripture and my heart soars. He brings interpreatation once again ‘help in the nursery, pay your tithe, show up, pay your tithe, so and so has an attitude about being taken outof the chorus’ and inwardly I struggle.
While optimism is wise for our God is able, and 2 can put 10,000 to flight,
I fear. With so many crying out in repentance and seeking the living God to help America, if the culture again hardens its heart: rather than renewal we may find judgement. Though this to would be a blessing as it would seperate the wheat from the chaff.
I am new to blogs and in fact have owned a computer for less than six months so it is I am having a hard time finding the connection to your blog at the top of the ‘thread’. Please help.
September 11th, 2007 12:48
Josiah,
Go to the top of the comments and on the first comment you can click on Phil’s name. Or, you can just click here.
September 11th, 2007 13:37
[…] Theological Musings: Phil Hawkins has been doing some excellent commenting here on this blog of late. And sometimes […]
September 11th, 2007 13:38
[…] Theological Musings: Phil Hawkins has been doing some excellent commenting here on this blog of late. And sometimes […]
September 11th, 2007 17:09
well I haven’t stopped by in a while but glad I did today..all I can say is a hearty AMEN!
September 16th, 2007 09:37
*sigh*
As usual, your blogging is over my head, so no thoughts worth sharing there.
Just wanted to thank you for the comment on my blog and for the clarification. I knew the truth, but it really wasn’t clear to all was it?
Thanks and blessings to you and your dear wife.
September 17th, 2007 11:14
thanks for the help