CHICKEN AND EGG

If I were to ask what the role of church is in society the responses would be prolific and quick to come. Many would argue that its role is to evangelize and increase the Kingdom of God. Others might agree that it is to increase the Kingdom of God, but that increasing the Kingdom of God is more about discipleship. Others would contend that it is about social justice and activism. Still others would be content that the role of the church is to have great worship services. Depending on how these differing opinions are demonstrated, the responses would vary just as much- if not more. But what if I were to ask who the church is responsible for? Obviously not “to”, but who is it responsible “for”? Is it responsible for Christians, non-believers, the local neighborhood, or the population of the world? The response to this would likely be less about the institutional values of the given congregation and reflect more on theological beliefs. In other words, since all these values are held by the church as relevant beliefs, the values of church may be shaped by the beliefs regarding responsibility. So if a church believes that it is responsible for the souls of mankind then it will value evangelism. If a church believes it is responsible for the homeless living on the streets around the building then it will value social justice. If it believes that it must hold all these things in balance then the actions will reflect that. These beliefs will shape the degree of value it puts in its values. The various values may be agreed upon, but what the church values more will become present as it articulates its belief regarding who it is responsible for.

There is an inherent flaw, however, allowing our values to be shaped by this belief. It has yet to adequately define who or what the church is. While many congregations may espouse the argument that the church is the people, it acts quite differently. It acts as though the church is the organization. Perhaps the reason the organization is hesitant to adopt a more formal ideology regarding the identity of the church is because there are so many levels within an organization. Regardless of the reason, the inconsistency leaves the individual solely responsible for his place within the kingdom. Or perhaps that is the benefit. If the church is the people, then the individual has the freedom to articulate his position. If this is a benefit then, a new flaw presents itself. The best way for the person with the freedom to articulate his own role within the church is to articulate his values- since there is no consistent belief to identify with. By doing this he forgoes his beliefs because he has the freedom to rearticulate his position with the church depending on desired context. But wait, maybe this too is a benefit. By allowing the individual to present his position within the church by demonstrating his values (even if those values are presented within the fluidity of context) rather than his belief, he is free to respond according to the changing nature of an undefined church. This would inherently mean that the beliefs of the follower of Christ are less significant than how he demonstrates his values. In fact, he is free to wrestle with beliefs while still identifying himself as a part of the church.

There is a practical reason for the line of thought. Easter morning my wife and I took our boys for a walk. On the walk I talked to my kids about the meaning of Easter and (since my boys are still young) I took the story from the traditional perspective of the satisfaction view of atonement. Soon my boys ran ahead of us and my wife asked me why I would teach them something that I don’t even believe. I had a difficult time articulating how I could value the traditional story of Easter while not being convinced that it is accurate. There are two parts to me: an evangelical Christian and a skeptic existentialist. Despite the inconsistency of the two dominant influences in my life, I feel quite comfortable feeling that both of them shape who I am as a follower of Christ. But in order for me to demonstrate my values (or for the sake of language- love for Christ and my neighbor) I must be willing to suspend my beliefs. It is not because my beliefs are unimportant, simply secondary to values and identity.