“At the core of our being is the tormenting need to know and be known, to understand and be understood, to possess and be possessed, to belong unconditionally and forever without fear of loss, betrayal or rejection.” (Gilbert Bilzekian)
It is important for me to note that this blog was first written about a year ago. I wrote it as an article to submit to a magazine. It wasn’t accepted. I am positive that it wasn’t accepted because of the quality of the article, but I also have wondered what other factors may have played into its rejection. As you may have noticed by now, my opinions and ideas about my faith and the institutions surrounding them are more an expression of frustration than a claim of truth. Despite that, I still felt pretty confident in its content. However, as I now go through it for revisions to submit to my blog I have come to feel even more confused about community than I did when I first became frustrated with the current state of community in the Body of Christ. For example, the community I was involved in at the time of the first writing of this article has since all but ended. That is assuming that we ever were truly a community. So, as you read my great insight into what community should look like keep in mind that I obviously have no idea what I am talking about.
John Wesley’s model for the church was largely dependent on increasing levels of intentional community. Whether it be the classes that developed out of the larger Society or the Bands that grew out of the classes, intimacy exhibited within community was critical to Wesley. Future models developed within the church such as Sunday school and eventually home groups, cell groups, and accountability groups, but despite the idealism proposed by leaders within the church and the obvious benefits of promoting smaller, more intimate group settings, the institutional and capitalistic influence within the predominant church paradigm makes it extremely difficult for true community to emerge.
There are potentially many factors that contribute to the lack of community within the church despite the church’s best efforts to develop it: political agendas, program saturation, external cultural forces, and more. However, the fundamental breakdown of community and the shallow form of fellowship that took its place is also to blame. The fellowship-oriented programs of the modern church are valid and have the potential to lead toward true community, but the intimacy required for community to emerge cannot be manufactured within an experience that promotes the program that surrounds the experience. In other words, community is often lost in the attempt to develop community. The intimacy that is required for true community to exist is difficult to develop. Churches create opportunities for community but often focus, rather, on goals such as church growth and developing social networks. More focused attempts for community are often attempted by those in the church through support groups, accountability partners, and other mechanisms, but the church-growth emphasis often negates the potential for intimacy. This is not to say that community never occurs in the modern church. In fact, I believe it often does. I experienced community in my youth group growing up, a bible study that I attended in college, through a peer support group for young ministers when I was in my early twenties, and recently I became involved in a men’s’ group that is made up largely of men from a certain church. I am not so jaded I would be critical of every attempt that those within the church have ever made at community, but that the influences of the institution, the historical misunderstanding regarding what community means, and the external pressures of society make the development of community within the institutional paradigm so difficult to develop that more often than not the results of community (in the rare cases it actually happens) occurs despite the church rather than because of the church.
According to Thayer’s Lexicon, “fellowship” (koinōnia) in Acts 2:42 means the intimacy that bonds all Christians. There is no doubt that there is a form of intimacy that bonds all within the Body of Christ to each other and to Christ, but the word refers specifically to the entire Body of Christ. This is practiced through worship, service, and even community. But fellowship and community are not necessarily equivalent ideals. “Community” is typically coupled with “fellowship” when defining close relationships. Community, as I address it here however, is the most intimate form of fellowship; the type of fellowship that occurs only within small groups of individuals who are able to invest in each other’s lives. The modern use of “fellowship” within the institutional paradigm requires a differentiation from “community” due to the superficial use of the “fellowship” which typically meets the institutional goal of general gatherings. I am introducing “community” as an alternative that reflects the raw intimacy that can only be experienced in a healthy way within a small group sharing a spiritual journey.
So then what is community? It seems that typically the first scriptural reference for answering this question is with the formation of the first post-Pentecostal community. The Body of Christ, or the Church, was born with the giving of the Spirit of God. Acts 2 gives an account,
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
As I read this account I am moved at the devotion and sincerity of the first Church, but I do not see a definitive depiction of community. Rather, I see a description of how the Body of Christ should function from a more holistic perspective. Community, however, is one part of how the Church should function, but it is not the same thing as Christian living. Even when referring to fellowship in verse 42 it is obviously in the context of the larger Body of Christ. The description given in Acts 2 is powerful and convicting, but not a definitive answer to the question, “what is community?”
In fact, verse 46 is the only verse pulled from this passage that does refer to community, yet the modern use of the entire passage is used to explain what is understood as community. Therefore, to use the remainder of the passage to reflect the nature of community may be misleading. Beginning in verse 42 we see the first element of the Church that is not necessarily an element of community. It reads, “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” These acts described in verse 42 refer to spiritual disciplines. Spiritual disciplines are an amazing means of grace and incredibly powerful in our spiritual development, but community is a discipline in and of itself. It is not only a place to simply practice the disciplines. In verse 43 we see something else that is amazing, but not necessarily a part of community, “Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.” When we begin to equate community with a place where we practice our spiritual gifts then we perpetuate the need to prove our worth to the group as a prerequisite for participation. It in fact develops a mentality that value within the group is directly related to what can be contributed by each member. It no longer is about what God is in each person, but what God can do through each person. Finally we see in verses 44 and 45 another amazing element of the Body of Christ, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” Social activism, service, and self-sacrifice are what, in many ways, sets Christianity apart from all other religions. But what is preeminent in the Christian life is intimacy with Christ. Acts of service will naturally develop out of community, but they are not the goal of community. There is no doubt that within community spiritual gifts and spiritual disciplines are going to emerge, but it is critical that true community values each person for who Christ is in each person without any other expectations or contributions.
No comments:
Post a Comment