The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly Commentaries
|
In Pursuit of Community: What Can We Do?
April 14, 2008
S. Michael Craven
 
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 ascendency 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 firstfruits of this redemptive work should be seen.
I am quick to add that this witness-bearing community is not inwardly focused and separate from the world but rather it represents a distinctly different way of living through which the church serves, and engages the world. In addition to local Christian communities expressed in and through the local church and 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 if the present diminution of community were not bad enough, we as a culture appear to be descending further into an almost hyper-individualistic sense of “community.” An example of this can be found in the phenomenon of social-networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace that have gripped the next generation in particular.
Writing in the Spring 2008 issue of Culture Magazine, Felicia Wu Song, Ph.D. makes the point:
Social-networking sites may have lasting consequence because their very design articulates what sociologist Barry Wellman has long argued: the local community is no longer a meaningful category for many Americans…. The best way to describe contemporary sociability is in terms of “networked individualism,” overlapping networks of social ties that have individuals at the core of each. People understand “community” in terms of multiple systems of friends, contacts, and acquaintances that span time and place—but are oriented around each independent self.
I would add that many Christians likewise view the community of God’s people as merely one of their many “systems of friends, contacts, and acquaintances” from which they can obtain the benefits common to networking. Dr. Song adds that these sites are not a causal force in this condition but merely “reflect and reinforce the basic dispositions toward networked individualism.”
So, let me ask you: If Christians living within a distinct community is an essential witness to the mission of God, and because so many of us seem unwilling to surrender the independent self, and since our present understanding and expression of this community falls painfully short; what can we do to remedy this situation?
Clearly, this problem is enormously complex and deeply embedded in our collective psyche. I don’t claim to know the solution (I have some ideas) but I think we the church, by God’s grace, can through prayer and reflection turn our greatest challenge into what could be the church’s greatest opportunity: the recovery of distinctly Christian community.
So, I am asking you: What practical steps can churches and individuals take to foster and promote a healthy, distinctively biblical, and witness-bearing community? Share your ideas HERE
© 2008 by S. Michael Craven
|
|
Responses
|
|
Response from : Ashton Page |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 9:12 AM
|
|
The days of barn raising are gone. I lost my house to hurricane Katrina and quickly relocated to another city. Those who did go back did not get help from neighbors but from people who came in from all over the country.In my new church we have a "helping Hands" ministry to assist elderly with home chores they can not physically do. I have be shocked at how few request for help come in. Society has taught us to depend on ourselves or do without. I have been thinking we could do more by just showing up on Saturday morning and saying, "You have me for 4 hours, what do you need done around here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Monte |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 10:27 AM
|
|
I think people are, on the surface, hungry for community. However, the raodblock is the (perceived) idea that we lack the time to do so. It's too hard for people to let go of their hobbies, their perception that their kids have to be involved in every available activity (beginning at such a young age anymore), having the perfect landscape, the pursuit of climbing the corporate ladder so we can have all the stuff we "need", etc. When are we going to prioritize our time to include what's eternally important? Our church also has a ministry like the one Ashton mentioned. The problem is, everyone is too busy with their own families and lives to help out others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Ross |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 11:12 AM
|
|
This subject is one that has been heavy on my heart recently. I feel very strongly that one of the ways the Christian church can truly show the redemptive work of Christ in the world is to show the world true community. As a result of the issues cited in the article, we are failing in this endeavor. Regarding a solution, our pastor tells a story of how he was sharing some complaints with a missionary about how he felt the mission organization wasn't doing some things he thought ought to be done. The missionary's response was, in my opinion, quite powerful: "Is that their burden Bob or is that your burden?" Those of us to whom God has given this burden need to take action; love those that God puts in our lives. Believer and unbeliever alike are in need of people to come along side them and be used of God to meet that deep need of community. God changed the world with 12 men who would die to themselves to serve their King. He can do it today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Greg Williams |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 11:21 AM
|
|
Another excellent article! We know that the core of this individualism is simply "self" which in reality is satan on the throne (he just uses our own "self- deception" to make us think we are are own 'gods' or for many who sit in the pews weekly that Christ is their Lord when He is in no way, shape or form, actually Lord of their lives).
I really think the only way to build relationships, or any community for that matter, is for the Church to truly fulfill the entire Great Commission and 'make disciples' under the Lordship of Christ!
Once we are really teaching the "gospel" as you described in your last excellent series on the Church in Post-Christendom, we will begin to see true Christ followers building His Kingdom (those under His Kingship or Lordship). Much of today's "apostate" church has completely ignored the teaching and discipling of those who aer seeking and come to Christ as they know it is asking 'too much' in light of our materialistic and humanistic worldview that has been mingled with the Bible to form today's 'christian teaching'! God forbid that people would be challenged to really make Christ Lord and they may lose their pew-fillers! The cost? A true lack of anything resembling Kingdom community!
Godly sorrow leading to repentance and revival should be the True Church's cry!
Thanks and God bless in Christ!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Tom Anderson |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 1:58 PM
|
|
Very glad to have found your site! The questions you are asking have been on my mind for 20 years. As a graduate of a main-line denomination's seminary system I was trained as a theologian. I have watched the very interesting transition of North American Christianity toward the Mega-church movement and have been to the seminars offered by the biggest names. I believe that your publishing of the article by Bob Burney, "A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church, brought things full circle for me. Over the years, in countless discussions with other Pastors, we reflected on where things were going. Some were openly critical of Walt Kallestad, Rick Warren, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, et.al. while others were admirers. I've never felt that God was not using these men nor have I felt that the movement was an aberration. I have always felt that it was a "transitional" movement toward the next move of God. As Burney writes, "If you simply want a crowd, the “seeker sensitive” model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it’s a bust."
After applying some of the modalities used by the "seeker sensitive" movement, and seeing growth in numbers in two congregations, I felt the same anxiety as I watched these congregations growth in breadth but without depth.
Coupled with this phenomena was a shift in the political and theological winds within my denomination and I made the decision with approximately 25 members to move away from that denomination and start a "free fellowship", not bound to a building, to the rites and rituals of a denomination, nor to the traditional political hierarchy of Pastor/lay distinctions. While I maintained my "ordained" status through fellowship with a denominational renewal movement offshoot, I shunned my traditional role as preacher/expert and became a facilitator of spiritual growth in what is, essentialy, a "house church". Our gatherings focus upon relation with each other, with the Word, and with Jesus.
Our gatherings include worship, prayer and intercession, the Lord's supper, and in-depth exploration of the scripture. My goal is to bring a transformation form believers to "disciples" who practice the word. My methodology includes education followed by training, followed by exposure to experts who are living and practicing their spiritual gfts, followed by giving them authority to go and do - much as Jesus did in Luke 10.
The results are very interesting and, for the most part, productive. However, I could not do this work in a large fellowship as it is very relationaly intensive. Thus, I do not depend upon the congregation to support me fully. This alone is counter-cultural in its implication. I am no longer the "professional" man of God.
We've also had to come to grips with a century of "cessationist" theology as we have seen genuine, verifiable evidence within the fellowship of miracles of healing and transformation that were left, in my denominational heritage to Doctors and treatment professionals. The result in the lives of the members of our fellowship is akin to the response of the disciples who returned from their assignment as recorded in Luke 10:17, "Then the seventy[e] returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'"
Based upon my experience, I believe that the shift that must take place within the culture of the North American Church revolves around training and preparing a different kind of leadership. We ought to look at the model of training the military uses of raising up more non-commissioned officers who train out of experience in the field rather than relying upon a structure that is top-heavy with Colonels and Generals.
The "seeker sensitive" movement has, for the most part, attracted a generation of folks who are satisfied with the "production quality" of the church and who are satisified with what Christianity can do for them rather than becoming disciples and doers of the Word. They seem to be willing to accept the fact that believing is enough and rarely find the true joy (and the tough going) that discipleship brings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : mc |
|
|
|
April 14, 2008 1:58 PM
|
|
Well, Michael, I can't really grasp the power and effect of individualism on the American community in general and the Christian community in specific. Here in the Middle East, Lebanon, being part of the community plays a great role in people's lives and even more in the lives of ethnic minorities.
If you see a stranded motorist on the freeway, total strangers would come along and help out without even being asked. Now that's trully a great blessing to still have here. Americans think the East and Middle Easterners are "friendly-freaks" that they open up their houses to strangers and have dinner with them without social barriers.
However, people in the east want to be more like the west since they think their individual identities are being assimilated, while westerners think the east is blessed to be living in a community as theirs.
During the 2006 July War, two Christians visited bombed villages in the South to support them materially. They came to one house which was hit badly by Israeli bombs and asked the dwellers - who had refused to leave their home - how they could lend a helping hand. The man's reply was this: "I just want you two to come inside and drink coffee with me."
They headed to the village to be a blessing to others. Instead they left the village being blessed themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Lloyd Miller |
|
|
|
April 15, 2008 6:45 AM
|
|
It is exciting to hear the validation of what we as a small community have been feeling. I know the loss of community in the context described is enormous. Though I grew up in it not all of our fellowship appreciates it because of the church belief system that had entangled us in its trap of religion in former times. Nonetheless the resulting community effect we fell strongly to preserve and has been a tremendous witness to the larger region beyond our 'walls'. We have our distinctive as a culture that did and still does in fact do barn raising as needed(tho the farm ing has been bled to near extinction)
Only thing is our encounter with the Living God brought our small group, (20 families) to a place that not only received closed the doors to our past and familiar relationships, it opened the door to the body of Christ who received us with whom we now fellowship with worldwide, along with it came the pressure of individualism and loss of need for one another. Our own increased mobility and technology has offered a free (costly?) ride to move away from the power of community that in effect is a spiritual glue to confirm the gospel in and of itself.
Neither do I promote an inward focusing
posture but rather solidify our identity
and use it to activate the gospel in deed and witness. So I appreciate that part of my forefather's pursuit and our aim before God is to exercise the natural outworking that has been part of our religious culture for 500 years, using it today even tho it's counter to the American culture around me, even the church as I know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Fran |
|
|
|
April 16, 2008 8:23 AM
|
|
Hi Michael. You've raised a great issue, not only for the Christian world, but for American culture as a whole.
Although it's true that people are more individualistic and isolated it is also true that we still need interaction.
I believe that believers have to be intentional about friendships...to the point that they care enough about people to take a 'leadership' role in their lives.
Let me give you an example: an acquaintance called me a few months ago about serious trouble in her marriage. Instead of just listening to her heart (I did do that) or 'judging' her, or 'advising' her, I started asking questions about her other relationships and her relationship with God. Turned out that she was isolated and estranged from God. Knowing that there were a couple of other women in our small community who were looking for friendships I suggested we get together for a bible discussion once a week.
A few weeks into that we studied prayer and started praying for our community.
That developed into a 'plan' of small dinner parties where we invite our neighbors to our homes, taking turns. The purpose is to show hospitality and show interest in others.
We've had success in having our neighbors express interest in spiritual things.
Our small group of women still gets together to pray and support each other in spiritual growth.
I don't know if this is what you had in mind, but it works for us. We just hold each other accountable for prayer and transparency with each other. And we look out for each other. We are careful not to become a closed group.
I believe these are essential elements to becoming a 'community' in today's American climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : David |
|
|
|
April 16, 2008 8:43 AM
|
|
I agree with the heart and hunger represented in the article. I have seen, heard and felt the same hunger from people in church for over 20 years. However I do not think radical individualism is the problem. All of us have seen that given the right environment most christians join in and participate in community. There are a lot of reasons but structure is the first element. How you build a house determines how you live in it. The structure of the container determines how the liquid flows. If you build it to focus on leadership and reinforce that focus (weekly meetings where people passively listen to leaders -pastors and worship teams on stage doling out the message of God an leading us into worship. Then structure creates passive non interactive relationships. Then you start a program that says be in community but the most traditionally important of your meetings (i.e. Sunday and Wed mtgs) always structural say we are leader focused and congregation passive. That mold will have to be reshaped to get to the next part where we can begin to work on consistent real community. Just changing the mold will not solve all problems just as building a functional house design does not make a good family. But if the house is designed incredibly poor it makes it harder for the family to have time, meals, fellowship and sharing. For many in America just making it to 2 church meetings a week is quite a chore. What we are then told is that we now must devote and extra amount of time to start working on becoming a community. That may work for those whose salary allows them to do that and for another small portion of society that can devote more time to church activities but the real world for the rest of us does not automatically lend itself to that. I believe if we can start by making the traditional meetings community enhancing not spectator enhancing then we can then move on to the next step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Dick Johnston |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 8:05 AM
|
|
I agree with the premise of your article. However, we have to change our attitudes, priorities and strengthen our belief system with God's renewing of our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Our actions need to be such that they attract others within our community to us with a desire to be more like us or have more of what we have. We need more shepherds to lead the sheep and not more preachers to pour on the guilt. Thanks, Dick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Johh |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 2:58 PM
|
|
Michael, I've enjoyed reading your series on the Church in Post-Christendom. If you are interested in digging deeper into one church's approach to do NT church in the current culture please check out this blog:
http://jeremypryor.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : William Miller |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 3:16 PM
|
|
It seems that the Seminaries are turning out pastors and church leaders that have God defined in their terms and all the members just need to be good Christians following church teaching. Not many sermons are preached focused on Jesus, His ministry,and the kingdom that He is bringing in by calling out disciples to follow Him, live in Him. Most are satisfied with just being good Christians living the good life. Satisfaction with good is the death of being best. If we remain in Him, He bears fruit through us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Pastor Ed Bacon |
|
|
|
April 22, 2008 9:56 AM
|
|
Clergy writing about this issue in their newsletter columns/preaching about the importance of being authentic in every walk of life.
http://www.oaklandchristianchurch.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Kevin |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 11:41 AM
|
|
Michael, Right on! God gave me James 5:16. This is the stuff authentic community is made of. You are hitting the nail squarely on the head. KEEP POUNDING!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Dr. Kenneth M. Young |
|
|
|
April 25, 2008 4:00 AM
|
|
I agree with Dr. Song's assessment of the Christian Church individualism and the need/hope of recovery of (our) distinctly Christian community. I think the use of technology such as:pod-cast, internet chat room, streaming ministry can enhance and perhaps recovery our distinctly Christian community. Thank you for the article of Christ and culture. Dr. Kenneth M. Young, author, "Going to the next Dimension." www.newgenerationorlando.com
http://www.newgenerationorlando.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : William Collier |
|
|
|
April 25, 2008 10:21 AM
|
|
The Upadarian Fellowship Household
Of Palmer, Texas
Overview- Two concepts inform the manner in which we will practice Christian community- a “Fellowship” and a “Household”
The bond of common purpose and devotion that binds Christians together and to Christ is usually described as Fellowship. “Fellowship” is the English translation of words from the Hebrew stem hbr and the Greek stem koin-.
The Hebrew hbr was used to express ideas such as common or shared house (Proverbs 21:9), “binding” or “joining” (Exodus 26:6; Ecclesiastes 9:4), companion (Ecclesiastes 4:10), and even a wife as a companion (Malachi 2:14).
Paul believed that Christians were to share with one another what they had to offer to assist fellow believers. Paul used the koin- stem to refer to such sharing. One who has received the word ought to “share” it with others (Galatians 6:6).
Though it is not translated “fellowship” in English versions, Paul actually used the term koinonia to denote the financial contribution which he was collecting from Gentile believers to take to Jerusalem for the relief of the saints who lived there (Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 9:13).
The reason he could refer to a financial gift as koinonia is explained by Romans 15:27: “If the Gentiles have come to share in their [the Jewish Christians'] spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things” (NRSV). In this case, each offered what they were able to offer to benefit others: Jewish Christians their spiritual blessings, Gentile Christians their material blessings. Such mutual sharing of one's blessings is a clear and profound expression of Christian fellowship.
For Paul, koinonia was also a most appropriate term to describe the unity and bonding that exists between Christians by virtue of the fact that they share together in the grace of the gospel. When Paul wished to express the essential oneness of the apostolic leadership of the church he said concerning James, the Lord's brother, Peter, and John, that they “gave to me the right hands of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9). When we realize that this expression of koinonia came on the heels of one of the most hotly debated issues in the early church, namely the status of Gentiles in the people of God (Galatians 2:1-10; Acts 15:1), we can see how powerful and all encompassing Paul's notion of Christian fellowship actually was.
Like Paul, John also affirmed that koinonia was an important aspect of the Christian pilgrimage. He affirmed emphatically that fellowship with God and the Son was to be expressed and experienced in fellowship with the other believers (1 John 1:3, 1 John 1:6-7).
Less well known, but important, is the term “Household”.
Galatians 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
Ephesians 2:19: 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
The word Household was a loaded word, it did not merely mean a house with an wife, father, and children. In the Roman world a Household was much more than that. The Roman household was quite large and could include the paterfamilias, his wife, his sons with their wives and children, unmarried daughters and slaves. The household, then, could be considered to be a small state within a state.
Often, the head of a Household was a Patron who had clients. The client system surrounding a patron would look out for its individuals. They would act as a kind of police, making sure no harm came to their own, that nothing was stolen from them. should one be struck down by poverty, the other clients, - and so too most likely the patron, - would see to it that one would get a loan, a daughter might be provided with a dowry, or at least the group would see to it that the deceased would get a decent funeral.
If the patron might not always provide help personally, it would most often be he who orchestrated it, perhaps asking other clients to help out one of his supporters who had fallen upon hard times. But the wealth of most patrons of course allowed him to hand out money to those they deemed deserving of such aid.
These Households were the prime mover in the Roman world and everyone was attached to a Household, directly as a member or indirectly as a client.
The root word is Oikos and it is from Oikonomos (rules of the Household) that we get the word “Economics”.
The term oikos is now used in Sociology to describe the social groups and people with whom the most time is spent. Several dozen to several hundred people may be known, but the quality time spent with others is extremely limited: only those to whom quality (face-to-face) time is devoted can be said to be a part of an oikos. Each individual has a primary group that includes relatives and friends who relate to the individual through work, recreation, hobbies, or our neighbors.
The modern oikos, however, includes people that share some sort of social interaction, be it through conversation or simple relation, for at least a total of one hour per week.
A Fellowship Household is a spiritual entity that consists of all believers in one location who share or commune with one another and God in order to practice their faith and meet all the needs of their life by being dependent on God, interdependent of one another, and independent, as much as possible, of the world. By Fellowship we mean sharing, but Household we mean being connected in a pace to face relationship.
The ideal size of a Fellowship Household is established by the need for some scale of cooperation and is limited by the idea that, to be a Household the members have to have a regular face to face interaction, for one or more hours per week. A large assembly of 500 people may serve a purpose, but in terms of Fellowship and being a Household of faith it is not practical: there is no way you can have the level of trust and knowledge of one another necessary for 500 people to really share with one another and there is no way these 500 people can have a REAL face to face relationship with each other.
It is important to understand that a Fellowship Household is a “small state within a state” in which individual families are “clients” of Jesus Christ, who share one another’s burdens in order to meet all of their needs (primarily by being responsible as individuals), and who have a face to face relationship with one another in a familial context.
We consider the ideal size of such a Fellowship Household to be between 25 and 100 families which allows all the men to know each other, all the women to know each other, and all the children to know each other.
The basic unit of the Ekklesia was something like this, what many call a “House Church”, but much more than this.
Colossians 4:15: 15Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2: 2And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
The idea here is that the Ekklesia was IN the house of these people, who, at the least, HOSTED fellowship meetings.
Acts 2:46: 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart…
Acts 20:20: 20And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house,
In these two passages we see that the Ekklesia was broken down into these smaller elements, not in a formal manner, but in a practical manner. They went to the Temple, mostly this was evangelical as they went to preach, and they go together in separate houses for common meals, often referred to as “Love Feasts”. The Ekklesia in Jerusalem was over 3,000 members strong, and clearly they did not all go to one house, hence the idea that the Ekklesia was broken up into house groups.
In the second passage we see that there are public meetings and then private meetings in houses. Apparently, in public meetings anybody could come and these were larger meetings, such as the big meeting that attended Pentecost when thousands showed up. Meanwhile, house-based meetings were more restrictive, especially since the heart of the meeting was Communion, which was not open to non-believers......
http://www.thejesusommunity.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : James Poteat |
|
|
|
April 27, 2008 1:58 PM
|
|
I believe as far as the christian community is concerned,some churches have resorted to individualistic approaches to the teachings of the word. They seem to fear by not incorporating some of man's traditions, a.k.a. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to name a couple of them. They fear they will scare away members and not be considered popular by man's standards. Man's traditions void God's word. The bible states that God's word will not come back void.This practice is viewed by devout Christians and potential converts as a hypocrasy and outright scandalous to many. We live in perilous times and signs of biblical proportions in reference to the end time prophesies are more evident than ever before. The deception that is to come in the form of false prophets and witnesses as a prelude to the return of a false Messiah is already being perpetrated within the established hiarchy of the very leaders responsible for the teaching of the word.True followers of the word will seek out a ministry that teaches the word as spoken in the good book no matter who offended by it as long as Gods will is practiced. If the church would get back to teaching the word without compromise then the word which is the Father's master plan as the author and the finisher of our faith will fill those pews with an understanding of love,togetherness,the fruits of the spirit so to speak where unity and peace and togetherness will abound and edify the church through one witness at a time.The intimate wisdom of God's word will provide peace beyond all understanding.One plant,one water, God gives the increase.In the end God will ultimately judge his elect. Many are called and few are chosen.We have to get back to teaching and spreading the uncompromised word just for starters. By the way God bless you and the work you do on behalf of our father.My spirit was truly moved by this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Brian Hickey |
|
|
|
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM
|
|
Hello Michael,
Thanks for a very interesting article! As a Pastor, I'm attempting to accomplish just what you are asking for in regards to developing a healthy, biblical community of believers who reach out to others.
My thinking is that we first need to remind ourselves who we are in Christ and rebuild our faith so that we are stronger in our walk with God and excited to realize what He has done for us.
Second, we need to rebuild the church community by practicing what the Bible says about loving your neighbor and working together to build up our faith as a community of believers.
I believe that when we do this, we will naturally begin to be a witness to our family, friends and neighbors as we reach out to them in our new-found faith. We will be more bold in our witness because we are more confident of who we are, and we will stop to help the stranded motorist because we remember what it was like to be that person in need of help with nobody around to turn to.
I would be interested to know what other comments you received in response to your question.
Take care and God bless your ministry,
Brian Hickey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Tola Ajayi |
|
|
|
April 2, 2010 7:55 AM
|
|
We need to break free from our selfish individual needs and begin to open our eyes to see the needs of others, we also need to allow the genuine love of God to propel our actions towards the needs of our society
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Gerald Hutchman |
|
|
|
April 2, 2010 12:56 PM
|
|
I agree with much of this article. I think the church needs to spend time contemplating this question: "Are we ourselves a distinct community within the community that God has placed us in?" I think it is critical that we answer that question in the affirmative. By distinct of course, I do not mean separate to the point of exclusion of others where we circle our wagons and make it difficult if not downright impossiblr for others to become a part. But distinct in that there is an appealing ethos about our community of faith where outsiders can see the power of Jesus Christ in our lives, demonstrated by how we love God and how we love others. If our community of faith is nothing more than a bunch of disconnected individuals out there doing "Christlike" things then I fear we will end up perpetuating the problem in that outsiders may be drawn to the individual rather than the community of faith.
http://www.salmobc.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : d |
|
|
|
April 2, 2010 7:01 PM
|
|
If we as 'Christians' pursued our Father and our faith as He calls us to we would be changed - and so would our world!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to This Article
Navigation Key
|
