Bodily connections
One of the things I appreciated about the church I grew up in was although it was categorically Mennonite, it was not uber-mennonite, if you know what I mean. Someone asked me lately about pacifism amongst Mennonites and I had to confess it had never been something I studied much or heard much about. The church I grew up in identified more strongly with the Evangelical movement as a whole than just the Mennonite faith, and I had a sstrong sense of connection beyond the followers of Menno Simons.
That was something I missed at one church I attended for a few years. Not a Mennonite church, it was classified as non-denominational, but it's identification and connections (e.g. the people it got in as speakers) were from a very narrow section of the Church universal. Although I found the scope of connection a bit broader at my next church, generally connection focused within the denomination, although it was a fairly large denomination with a lot of different flavours.
From the emerging church movement I hear people saying: the church is about more than my local body, more than my denomination, more than a slice of other people and bodies whose theology approximates mine. The church is about all who see Christ as their Lord. It's a much wider brush stroke than I've ever seen before. And it seems right to me, as Jesus called for unity in his followers, and church in the NT is generally thought of not as a local gathering but as all of Christ's followers.
I realized today that it is oen thing that now makes me more trustful or more wary of local bodies, movements, or even people. How wide is the sphere of influence? Do they primarily call on speakers, read books and attend events that are from a very small part of the body of Christ? Or is there some sense of connection with the Church Universal?
That was something I missed at one church I attended for a few years. Not a Mennonite church, it was classified as non-denominational, but it's identification and connections (e.g. the people it got in as speakers) were from a very narrow section of the Church universal. Although I found the scope of connection a bit broader at my next church, generally connection focused within the denomination, although it was a fairly large denomination with a lot of different flavours.
From the emerging church movement I hear people saying: the church is about more than my local body, more than my denomination, more than a slice of other people and bodies whose theology approximates mine. The church is about all who see Christ as their Lord. It's a much wider brush stroke than I've ever seen before. And it seems right to me, as Jesus called for unity in his followers, and church in the NT is generally thought of not as a local gathering but as all of Christ's followers.
I realized today that it is oen thing that now makes me more trustful or more wary of local bodies, movements, or even people. How wide is the sphere of influence? Do they primarily call on speakers, read books and attend events that are from a very small part of the body of Christ? Or is there some sense of connection with the Church Universal?
posted by Jude | 9:48 AM
6 Comments:
While I hear your desire for the broader brush strokes - and we now live in a time where technology enables us to access these more fully, I find myself drawn more and more in the other direction. There's definitely wisdom out there beyond my own little community, but I grow weary of trying to impact the entire world. I'm not sure thatI'm necessarily called to that.
There was a catch phrase a while back - and I can't remember what it was from, recycling perhaps? - that said "Think globally, act locally." I think that's more where I'm at. I think, perhaps, that I am called to "be Jesus" to my community rather than needing to stop all global injustice. I'm just me. So I'm going to affect the people around me - bloom where I'm planted, if you want a cliche.
It can be very easy to lose yourself in the global mindset, I think. You either make yourself more important (the saviour of the world) or insignificant (it's too big for me). Balance is difficult to find.
But then, difficulty doesn't define a thing's value, does it?
I think we're talking about slightly different things. I'm talking more about a closed-mindedness, where a church mainly gets speakers in from their narrow slice of the pie, advocates books that come from writers within their narrow slice of the pie, goes to conferences at other churches that are within their slice of the pie. I'm talking about a sense that "we've got it" and by implication, there is not much of value to learn from the broader body of Christ. I'm thinking of how theologically we start to focus on our key areas and forget that there are other ideas that can grow and expand us.
You are so far from what I'm talking about.
In terms of relationship, I am also where you are. I can't really relate to the whole body, but I certainly can learn from it.
No, I heard you. I was just giving a different facet of the "global perspective". I understand what you're saying.
Unfortunately, I think that the "narrow slice of the pie" approach is intended to be a protective measure, as people, by and large, have not been taught HOW to think, but rather WHAT to think. Critical thinking skills are at an all time low, IMO...
Heard an interesting quote the other day apparently by C.S. Lewis. It was something to the effect of: When people stop believing in God the problem is not that they don't believe in anything. It's that they WILL believe anything.
Okay... I did some digging. Not C.S. Lewis, but rather a misquote of G.K. Chesterton. I still like the thought, though.
Oooooh... now I'm just getting bombarded with thoughts - and you get to read them! Lucky you! ;-)
What about the body analogy? This does seem to be along the same lines. The idea that we are globally part of the body of Christ. Well, what if the ear doesn't really need to know how the foot functions in order to be an ear? What if the information it most needs is how to be an ear? Does any organ or part of the body need to know how the other parts function in order to do their own jobs(aside from the head, of course - but Jesus has that part covered)? Will it make them more "well rounded"? Perhaps.
Or is this just where the analogy breaks down...
Just thinkin'
True, the ear doesn't need to know how the foot functions to be an ear.
However, if the ear isn't talking to the brain, and the foot in turn isn't listening to what the brain has to say, the foot may find it difficult to move the body out from in front of that rather fast moving Mack truck with the "I don't brake for Christians" bumper sticker.
Don't even get me started on the all important superfluous third nipple.
Oh, Imho, true pacifists are extremely rare; most mennos that I've met are more passive agressive than pacifist...or maybe I just bring that out in them :).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home