In the long years of ramp-up towards actually finding an excuse to join a church, my most conscious motivator was the desire to belong to a community: a defined community, with a tangible sense of inclusion. I wanted a church "where everybody knows your name," and where a shared set of values could be found. Having made a place for myself in such a community over the past two years, I realize that this notion of what church does for me is working just fine. Moreover, the church seems to do this for me in the way it should: it equips me to turn around and go "be the church out there," acting out my faith publicly in a variety of ways. I've learned in just the last few months how many of my fellow members also find this to be true; and it's been a pleasure to discover all the less visible and more quiet, but no less profound, ways in which they too are "the church out there." And what I wonder now is this: Should the church be a constant operating platform for each member, a continuity in their lives outside its walls, or should some people "graduate" from one church to the next?
By this I mean that maybe our church, NECL, could and should be a launching point for certain members to branch off, or just leave the nest entirely. Maybe that's what makes the most sense in the spiritual growth cycle of some members. If so, what should we graduate to? Is there already a common destination (sort of a "grad school" church) or is it determined individually? Is "graduating" part of the normal church-seeking process, as one's needs and interests change and other churches start to look like a better fit; or is the process less lateral and more intentional?
What's the goal of going to church and being a member of the church community? How is that goal tied to who we are in our public lives? That might seem like a funny question from the point of view of a life-long member, but I do wonder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's an interesting question. Part of the Christian tradition is the idea of being "called" to certain communities - something I think is true for members as well as Ministers, where the idea is more conventionally found. If someone feels called to worship and serve in a particular community outside of our own, certainly I would hope the role of the church would be to help and encourage. On the other hand, my own history in rural community churches was one where the community was as much one of place and culture as of faith and I don't necessarily think that was a bad one - it's an aspect I've missed more in the urban environment, where people often congregate over issues more than locale, and I've enjoyed being part of a church that is as strongly identified with its locale and community as with its values. In the end I think people have to follow their spiritual path where it takes them - but I'd shy away from thinking of movement in hierarchical terms like "Graduating." We're all perpetually beginners in faith, regardless of where we go - and as the old Christian proverb holds, "before the cross, all ground is level."
Thanks for your comment. I was struck by two things. First, that the hierarchical model could be misleading, in terms of "graduating" from one church to the next. I agree in that it's more likely to be a latitudinal move -- an adjustment to growth but also change. I think part of where this question comes from is my curiosity about the imperative of church. Of church-ing. If I skip a couple Sundays in a row for whatever reason, as I have this past month, it bothers me -- I'd love for the Lenten mid-week services to be a year-round thing, I'd love to have an excuse for formal observance more often than I do. But I tend to put this down to noobishness; I'm new to the church. So what if, instead of church being merely habit-forming, what if I decide I need a little something different? What if I get sick of worship at my church, what happens then? I'm not in line for this, but I wonder how this process evolves and plays itself out in others. I wonder about the ones who left during consolidation. Are they happier now? And is there a point at which a really faithful person leaves the church behind, happily and in good health? And what about those people (for that matter) who bounce from church to church like bad-relationship junkies? Having only this one life, I'm curious about the lives of others, and I always wonder what it would have been like to be a life-long church-goer.
Hi Jennifer,
I think a church is the body of Christ. We commit to a group of individuals to be part of the body of Christ too. As such, they are not perfect. I choose to love them as they are and hope they love me too.
I don't believe we can be Christians outside of the body of Christ. The bible is pretty clear about this. We have to love his body, as He does or how can we be Christians?
Temptation to leave usually comes when I am not satisfied with worship, church operation, other people, or something that benefits me personally.
No group is perfect and the grass is always greener somewhere else. This temptation to leave will always be there when things are frustrating, or disappointing.
Jesus must feel frustrated with us at various times too. He must love NECL and He can't leave. Since a church is a group of people, it is by nature never perfect - yet is has the key element - a group of people who love each other.
It is also the friction of community that improves and challenges us. When we are disappointed we need to try to improve things. We have opportunities for new challenges, when there are needs. We also challenge other people to grow by our actions. We need to take responsibility for our own growth, and bring that back to our church family too.
If we want community, this is what it is. It is not perfect, but it is love, commitment and growth. I think the answer may be "more" community, not less or different community
Dan Scoggins
Post a Comment