As I wrote in the updated "about me" section, I've reached a point in my life, academically and spiritually, where I feel like I should be writing about the things I have been and am learning. For the first entry in this re-vamped blogosphere of mine, I suppose I could tackle something relatively simple - but where's the fun in that, eh?
Instead, I want to speak about churches. Specifically, churches leaving association with other churches due to disagreements. Be it over women in ministry, gays, lesbians, and their roles within the church, or simply for personal reasons; people leave churches and churches leave associations.
This. Drives. Me. Nuts!
I understand disagreements happen. I understand that people are passionate about differing issues and ideals. I understand that it is, at times, very hard to be around -let alone stand before the Infinite- with those you disagree with. I get that. Really, I do. But leaving or disassociating over a difference? That seems entirely childish to me.
A child who does not get his way is usually apt to announce: "Fine, I'm taking my toys and leaving! You can't play with me or my toys anymore!" Sometimes they announce: "I don't like you! You can't hang around with my friends and I anymore until you are more like us!" If only these were habits we grew out of as we aged. Sadly, it seems we only learn to use them in more tactful and powerful ways.
Again, I'm sensitive to the fact that there are a multitude of very passionately held differences in the various churches around with world today. I'm also sensitive to the fact that most folk, be they progressive or traditional, will try to use the Bible to justify their understandings and decisions. I respect that and I agree that the Bible can say multiple things to multiple people in multiple places. This is one of the things which makes the Bible both amazing and maddening. It's also one of the reasons why we, as a people who hold to the Bible, must commit ourselves to dialogue about why we understand and believe one way or the other. (Note: I said "dialogue" not "shouting over one another" as seems to be the growing trend!)
The first century church seemed to understand this rather well. In the Biblical "Acts of the Apostles," chapter 15, we read about the First Council of Jerusalem. Making a very long story short, this was a council where progressive and traditional movements in fledgling Christianity came together for a sit-down. What's most fascinating, however, is that they never really reached a point where they said "Your side is right, my side is wrong." Instead, they reached a point where they agreed to disagree, but respected and valued the opinions of the other side. Moreover, they -and perhaps most critical to we today- they agreed to be warm, open, and respectful to one-another, even though they disagreed. I can't say that I've ever been part of a church which has been threatening to split, leave, or disassociate, but I can't help but wonder where this scripture passage is during those churches' times of consternation?
I also wonder where the scriptural passage which says "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together" ranks in such churches? Certainly, these churches aren't generally talking of disbanding at all, so this might seem an odd passage to bring up. However, on a pragmatic scale, I think this is critical. Ray Kroc has been attributed as saying "we can accomplish more together than on our own." Though he was a restauranteur, I think Ray's motto fits well with the modern church. We can reach out to more people, provide more relief to the poor, needy, and hurting, and share resources, faith, and fellowship much more readily when we are together in association than when we try to go it alone.
So what am I trying to say with all this? Leaving, be it for progressive or traditional reasons, is never the answer for a church. Stick it out. Speak your piece and your peace. Maybe you ARE the voice crying out in the wilderness, or maybe you're the entire opposite. We can only find out if we agree to share our lives, faith, beliefs, and stories with one another. I imagine, if we actually gave this a go, we might find that we could all rather comfortably meet in the middle with a respectful understanding of our differences, but a unity about our purpose. If the ancient church, in all its messy birth, growth, and immaturity, could do so, how much more should we 2,000 years onwards?
Till then.....
