Today’s guest post by Tracy P.
———————————————————————————————————-
In the comments on the last post, there was a reference to the church’s role in defining for believers who God is. In The Shack, Mack and Jesus talk about the church within a broader conversation about society and its institutions. Mack’s frame of reference towards the church and the people in it is somewhat cynical. Jesus responds to him in this way (p. 181):
Mack, I love them. And you wrongly judge many of them. For those who are both in (the world) and of it, we must find ways to love and serve them, don’t you think? Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda.
- What do you think the church’s role is in defining who God is for the Christian?
- What do you think is the individual Christian’s role in defining who God is for the body of believers?
- Is there any overlap between the two?
- Is it wise or even possible for the mature Christian who finds his/her definition of God differing from the definition put forward at church to love and serve the church without any agenda?
WowA! I am startled by the questions! Very up-front and very exciting. These are questions that I really want to hear discussed, now. However, I can’t break the ice on this. I do urgently await others’ responses!
I’m not feeling real well, but I’ll give it a shot. Remember that everything I say here is “in my opinion”.
What do I think the Church’s role is in defining God? How much space do we have here? Here’s the short version: I believe the Church’s role (big C) is to be sacramental, which means that the Church “defines” God through acts of love to one another, through practicing ways of forgiveness that heal people, through taking care of the “least of these”, and through emptying themselves in order to serve. In other words, God who revealed Himself in the person of Christ is the God who was “defined” for us in the flesh, and who the church should attempt to define for others by DOING what Christ DID. By doing this, Christ continues to DO things in the world.
This doesn’t mean that we allow bad behavior under the guise of being loving, but instead lovingly confront bad behavior as detrimental to the community we call Church. It’s not okay for a husband to abuse his wife, or for a woman to sleep around, or for a teenager to cheat because those are not things that the community can do and call the revealed love of God. And if we have done this sacramental community correctly, people will be tempted to leave the community over this confrontation, but can’t because the draw of love and forgiveness and wholeness can’t be found anywhere else but with the Church.
The individual has a couple of roles helping “define” God for the community. Most of them are obvious based on my description of the Church, but I can think of two really important ones. First, as the basic unit of the community who is searching the Spirit for the correct way to show love and forgiveness in the particular instances in which the church (small c) finds itself. Second, the individual is responsible for participating in the community in a way that shapes the community towards their particular gifts. I don’t have enough space to unpack that one.
The overlap between the two is more like a circle of life between the two. The Church’s definition of community does not exist in a vacuum, but is continually formed and reformed by the individual’s who participate in it. In return the people who participate are shaped and influenced by the larger community and tradition in which they are participating. In this way, the intuition of our faith can be maintained at the same time the particular methods and formulations can be reformed into something relevant to the time in which we live.
As far as the agenda question, I’m not sure I believe any human can be agenda-free. However, I’m not sure that’s what Young is getting at here. The Church’s agenda is to show love and forgiveness sacramentally. I would argue that agendas beyond that stem from either pride or a wish to overpower the other. For instance, I was taught that it was sub-Christian to believe that evolution is okay. Over the years, I’ve come to see such definitions as a power play from those whose agenda is to control the interpretation of the Bible and to create a litmus test that separates “us” who are Christians from “them” who are not. I’m pretty sure such a strict separation is not possible, except by looking at the fruits of the Spirit. (Which, in and of itself, is tricky!)
However, to love and serve IS our agenda. And to the extent that we fulfill that agenda,I believe we will shape not only our church, but also the world in which we live.
Whew. There’s my super-abridged Cliff’s notes version of my answer to those questions.
Eric–Why so surprised?
Ben–I would love to get the unabridged version! Because I can see where each of these could really be fleshed out. I much appreciate your hands-on, or perhaps more appropriately, incarnational approach. I believe you have gotten to the heart of Young’s point, which is powerfully practical, where the church tends to get stuck in the mire of the theoretical.
However, what of the church’s role in building a theology? God met Mack at the shack to help Mack understand who He is. Really, in essence, to reframe Mack’s theology. I think God finds uniquely personal places in each of our lives to meet us, and to reframe our theology. However, in the story, it seems as though the church is more of a hinderance in this process than a help. I am wondering, what might the church have done to be more effective in helping someone like Mack get a truer picture of the character and nature of God, that might have served as a better foundation before he lost Missy, and that might have helped him find comfort after he lost Missy?
Loving and serving are totally Christian, but there are a lot of people in our world who love and serve but don’t have the time of day for Christ. What distinguishes our God from a “good person” who loves, serves, and forgives?
Your questions back are good ones, but hard (if not impossible) for me to answer.
For instance, you ask what the difference is between a Christian and one who doesn’t have time for Christ. There are a couple of things 1.) scripture tells us that we will know those who follow Jesus by their fruit (Matthew 7: something), 2.) that those who are saved will cast out demons, talk in tongues, and handle snakes (Mark 16:17-18), and 3.) that whoever is not against us is for us (Luke 9:50). Confusing? You bet. In other words, I’m not sure how to answer your question, since it seems to be getting at the line between “Christian” and “Not Christian”. Aside from fruit, I’m not sure we can tell the difference, and even that may be unreliable. Maybe we aren’t meant to know?
I mean, suppose there is a person who denies Jesus as anything more than a good moral figure, but this person bears fruit in keeping with repentance, service, love, forgiveness, etc. Are we in any position to determine how they will be eternally judged? I’m not sure we are.
I believe the Church’s role in building a theology should be to preserve our historical intuitions (which we get from scripture and from tradition) in light of new challenges to our faith. For instance, if we have a person who loves nature, we can pretty confidently say that God is “in” the tree, but God is not the tree. This preserves the intuition that God can be found anywhere, and penetrates all things, but preserves the idea that God is not that which he penetrates.
Traditionally, the Church has been concerned with saying “no, that’s too far” or “no, that’s not far enough” with relation to “defining” God in a particular context. But we must hold these formulations loosely, lest we “DEFINE” that which is undefinable. In other words, the community helps us define a rubric by which we can rightly conceive of the God of our fathers in light of our current struggles while at the same time letting our experience with Him inform the rubric. (Did that make any sense?)
Let’s use a Biblical example. A good portion of the NT (especially Hebrews) talks about Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. That was GREAT for people who were looking for the perfect sacrifice. Quite frankly, I’ve not met anyone in 21st century America who is looking for the perfect sacrifice to take away their sins. They ARE looking for a better way to LIVE. So, while I believe the Biblical authors were correct to call Jesus the perfect sacrifice, I believe the Church is also right to leave the imagery of sacrifice behind in the quest for a more relevant image. What is imperative, though, is we keep the intuition of a sacrifice as a way to maintain a relationship between God and man. Jesus is still the way we get that relationship, but maybe not using the image of sacrifice.
Alright, that’s enough for now.
Here is Melissa’s comment from the last post that sent me looking for the passage I quoted from in “The Shack” for this post:
“I feel that today’s church does a good job of telling us how we should conceive of God. Yes, in essence, that is the church’s job but I wonder if we don’t leave enough room for God to be surprising and bigger than life. I wonder if we (I am part of the church, too!) help build each others’ boxes that confine God’s true nature in our lives. The very boxes that we are trying to break down to unleash God’s greatness in our lives!”
It seems to me you are saying something similar, Ben, in your rubric paragraph, although yours also contains the element of the transcendence of time and culture. I think the church does well to bear in mind that it is not our role to define God in a way that implies he CAN be defined, which would serve instead to CONfine him. Our job is to somehow reflect in an ever-increasing manner the infinite facets of who God is.
“In other words, the community helps us define a rubric by which we can rightly conceive of the God of our fathers in light of our current struggles while at the same time letting our experience with Him inform the rubric.”
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. It would make more sense to me to substitute the word framework for rubric, because in education, a rubric is a grading scale that describes the standard of performance related to each grade or score on the scale. Assuming that you are not advocating for giving God grades based on his performance, I think it is very helpful to realize that every generation will experience God in ways that we never could have before, and that this has to somehow inform or enlarge our framework, while also being interpreted from within the framework. Is this in keeping with what you are saying?
Actually, I wasn’t asking for a differentiation between a Christian and someone who doesn’t have time for Christ. What I was trying to say was, I think a lot of non-christians think they don’t need God because he is no better than them at their best. Even in “The Shack”, Papa (I believe) says to Mack, “Mack, I am not like you!” (Lee is reading the book at the moment or I would try to find it.) It seems to me that a common misnomer the world has about God is that He COULD be summed up by a good human example. We know, whether we practice it or not, how to live as Jesus did. It seems to me that our greater challenge is the part of teaching as he taught…or rather trying to teach with integrity what he WOULD teach if he were living in the flesh among us today.
Yup, you’ve summarized my comment well. Replacing the word “rubric” with “framework” is just fine, because by using rubric I mean, “a set of guidelines or directions typically used to approach difficult or complex problems”.
As far as your last paragraph, it made me laugh because I (if I’m permitted to pass judgment for a moment) find that Christians are more guilty of seeing God as just a really good version of themselves than non-christians. God is infinitely different than us, yet powerfully close to us in both Spirit and example. Christians should know this better than anyone. Personally, I blame our petrified theology for the pervasiveness of this in the church. It seems that “The Shack” talks about this in a roundabout way.
Point well-taken!
It’s not an answer to any of your particular questions, Tracy, but we also should remember that many of life’s most profound epiphanies are found during “teachable moments”. It is quite possible that nothing any church could have ever done for Mack could have prepared him to meet god in the shack the way losing Missy did.
Starting with the third question, I believe it was Luther that sought to disassociate the role of the church from the role of the individual. I know it gets muddier than that, but really, the role of the church is quite limited if we are to have a personal relationship. THE SHACK speaks to this in describing the situation when, as an institution, the church educates its leaders: I believe vinegar is the term used to describe seminarians. Ben, this must have tickled you. THE SHACK takes quite an opposition to many of the notions we have with the church. I found a similar situation in THE IRRESISTIBLE REVOLUTION.
Now the third question. Oh boy. The great question of organized religion: what to do with the nuts! Your phrasing of the question begs a counter question, what is a mature Christian? Just an fyi, 70% of drivers think they are above average. How many people would consider themselves an immature Christian? Besides me, of course!
Our own definition of God. The great part of THE SHACK is in the portrayal of an individual’s definition of God. It happened to involve child abduction, pain medication, a gun, and a bit of trauma. My definition, or moments leading to my definition are quite different. We probably cannot avoid an agenda- that’s the holy-grail-like objectivity that always remains. Beyond seeing ourselves as mature and above average drivers, we tend to justify our actions. I guess the question I posit is how do you corral all these agenda’s into a body? This perhaps is the problem that has resulted in such a variety of religious sects.
What is funny about the seminarian comment is that both Shane Caiborne and William Young are seminarians! That’s not to say that the “vinegar” comment doesn’t apply – my posts on “lessons from Sem” on that other blog should make that clear.
I find it strange the way we want to disassociate the role of the Church from a personal relationship. Doesn’t it seem better to redefine the role of the Church so that it fosters the individual relationship with the divine, and that our relationship with the divine is not complete without the Church? We love to think of the Church as some symbol of crusty dogma that prevents real living and fresh thought (which it often is!). It was intended to be the opposite, and it should be the opposite, but cannot in its current form.
Of course, if everyone would just realize how far above average I am, we could get all this solved.
Eric–Excellent point about what is a mature Christian? At first I thought I should rephrase that and say something like, “an intentionally growing Christian who has achieved some level of independence in his or her ability to…mmm, to what?” So you can be happy with yourself for getting me stuck.
But that made me think of a child, who has been raised to have a certain set of skills, competencies and knowledge that would free him to live independently, though this makes him no less important in relation to the family, nor does it trivialize the family’s ongoing importance in his life. It definitely changes the relationship.
There are some skills and understandings involved in growing to Christian maturity, that move one from spiritual infancy to spiritual adulthood. There is increasing independence at every level, and as one moves from level to level (although these are not measurable and don’t look the same or even come in the same order for everyone), one is more and more often found in the role of knower, or teacher, as well as learner. The process is often called discipleship, and it’s the one Jesus used with his own disciples.
The way I see it, the church’s role IS to raise and nurture a Christian from in the womb to the place where he has the knowledge and skills to feed himself and then take his place in nurturing more new life. Again, some of the stages occur in different orders or simultaneously, but that is the principle.
Ben, I think I hear you saying that the church should provide the framework for this process. I like this quote, “Doesn’t it seem better to redefine the role of the Church so that it fosters the individual relationship with the divine, and that our relationship with the divine is not complete without the Church?” You say that it cannot in its current form. But today’s church has many, many forms. Which form are you objecting to? Is it a form that is completely ineffective and irrelevant to all, or only to some? Does it not serve to foster anyone’s individual relationship to the extent that they are drawn to its lifegiving support in their lives as they grow up in Christ? How would you redefine it?
Eccelsiology is sticky, but I believe that a general structure of the church that leads to hierarchy is the primary reason why the church cannot be the thing it was meant to be. Perhaps my statement “it cannot in its current form” was a little strong, but I think the stereotype holds – the vast majority of church forms are hierarchical in regards to humans.
I can’t think of anything but crass examples to illustrate my point, but essentially, I see hierarchy as opposed to what the Church is supposed to be. We’re all led by the Spirit, headed by Christ, and there is no mediator between us and Him. When we put stuff in between (like pastors, priests, conventions, and diocese), I believe we drift away from being the ‘Church’. It’s like dry water, or blackish white – when you mix the two (Church and hierarchy) you end up with grotesque results. Our current culture calls this bitter pill “religion”.
That’s not to say that some individuals don’t realize all this on their own, but I would venture to say that this happens despite the church structure. Does that make the structure irrelevant to all? I guess not, but I would say that it is not what it should be. Even a crippled person can get from point A to point B, just not in the way intended. We (the church) have been crippled since Constantine because we’ve become a blackish white.
I could deconstruct the modern church all day long, but these days I’m want to be more focused on finding the imagination to conceive of the Church in a different way. As you know, I’m short on imagination, but I would like to see non-hierarchical churches, focused on internal and external community in ways that mediate the presence of God.
What beautiful discussion! I’m so enjoying this (even though I don’t have anything to add).
I am curious if any of you have heard of comparisons made between “The Shack” and a scene from Stephen King’s “The Stand”? In chapter 40, a man in pain, who’s world has been turned upside down, hears someone singing “I come to the garden alone, While the dew is still on the roses, (etc.)”, he follows the sound and comes upon “a shack” with a description of the porch etc., where he encounters an old black woman, who makes biscuits and invites him into a relationship that eventually sets the man on the side of good against evil.
Ben–I appreciate the desire to be forward thinking. Your description gives some good food for thought.
I have never thought of the early church not being hierarchical in the sense that they had leaders and elders and teachers. I guess I’m not aware of a lot of structure like we tend to have in our denominations today. I can say that while I grew up in a church that was part of a top-down structured denomination, I opted to be a part of one that emphasizes a more bottom up approach. Not that there isn’t power on top, but there is a very significant difference.
Lonnie–I have not heard any of this discussion. Sounds interesting. Anyone else?
Oops! Lonnie, I believe I overlooked your first comment, and it’s an important one. The church’s role is not to be the crucible in which our faith is tested–although sadly, it is possible for it to serve as such. But how would you respond to Mack’s allegations against the hypocrisy of the church–saying his wife was the only authentic Christian he knew? Do you think the church had let him down, or do you think he expected the church to serve a role it was never intended to serve?
Tracy – In the interest of full disclosure there is some debate about whether or not the NT either presents or advocates a hierarchy. Baptists and Lutherans, for instance, fall on the same side of the debate, but to a different degree. My position is more radical than the Baptist position, which in turn is more radical than the Lutheran position.
Lonnie – I have not read “The Shining”, although I want to. Do you think that Young may be heavily borrowing from King, or do you think it is more of a coincidence?
Bprjam — just to be clear, it is “The Stand” not “The Shining”. And the number of parallels seem too great to not have been an influence. It includes other things like laying on his back at night being amazed by the night sky, etc. I would love to have someone ask Young about it and hear what he had to say. It is possible that he never read the book, it was made into a TV miniseries that I’ve never seen (it was while we were living abroad), and I don’t know how much of this was in the TV series (the book is about 1150 pages long so I’m sure much was left out).
Ooops, you’re right. I meant to say “The Stand” and not “The Shining”. Sorry about that.