There seems to be as many names and descriptions of churches as there are Christians:
Organic church, reformed church, simple church, urban church, missional church, rural church, house church, fundamentalist church, emergent church, community church. Baptist church, Lutheran church, Presbyterian church, Methodist church.
What do all of these titles have in common? At first blush, very little. There is little that a confessionally Reformed church would agree with a house church about. An old line Northeastern Methodist church in Connecticut and a funky emergent church with a name like “Lifestream Community” in Oregon are seemingly night and day.
Here is the common ground: all of these titles are at the core about “me”. These titles are declarations to the world of what I believe in and where I stand by my attendance at this particular local church and conversely what I don’t believe. I am a Baptist. I am a house church guy. I am Reformed. I am a Lutheran. One of the first questions Christians ask one another when they meet for the first time is “Where do you go to church?” because that question establishes some boundaries right away. If someone says “I am a member of Limited Atonement Reformed Baptist Church of Topeka”, you get a pretty good feel for where they stand doctrinally. It is especially cool if you are a member at a church with a recognizable name and a famous pastor: “I am a member of Saddleback” or “I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist”. You get some instant street cred if John Piper is your pastor.
There is a real problem with identifying our allegiance based on the name of a group we gather with or finding our identity in that description. As I have mentioned before, because we spend so little time with one another, these names and descriptions help us to eliminate unacceptable fellowships right away. No need to waste precious Sunday mornings with people you disagree with, you can eliminate lots of “churches” right off the bat just by their name. How convenient is that?! What is really happening is not so much declaring our affinity with one group as it is declaring our disagreement with everyone else. I f I liked you and we agreed on doctrine, I would "go to church" with you. Since we don't and in spite of all of our feel-good platitudes to the contrary, I don't "go to church" with you because it is inconvenient or I disagree with you or flat out don't like you. How is that for Christian unity?
The other problem is that it is so easy to answer with the traditional response because trying to answer the question “Where do you go to church” with “First Presbyterian in Akron” is easier than “We gather together with other Christians on Sundays at a place off of 14th street”. That answer is going to lead to puzzled looks and either more questions or more likely the person saying “Oh….” followed by an uncomfortable silence. So we typically revert back to the old stanby answer because it is just too exhausting to try to explain it any other way. Dividing ourselves by our names may be wrong but it is easy.
There is only one name that should matter to us and that is Jesus Christ. He bought us, He redeemed us, He called us and He made us His own. Anything we do to sunder what Christ has brought together should concern us greatly.
2 comments:
Excellent post. A couple years ago when two other guys and I were ministering in the jungles of Tura in Northern India, we learned that the believers there were being persecuted not by Hindus or Muslims, but by Baptists and Catholics. In, fact some believers had been pelted with stones and others beaten shortly before we arrived. They referred to the Baptists as “nominal” Baptists. Of course there are American Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, Southern Baptists, etc., etc. Many years ago someone said that there are more Baptists than people.
Speaking of Baptists, a friend and I met a godly man walking with some great folks in North Carolina who used to be part of a large Baptist Church in Florida. He said the youth group had a real aggressive outreach program. They would bus the young people down to the red light district and throw eggs at prostitutes.
He also introduced us to the extensive website of a Baptist Church that featured stunning graphics depicting Jerry Falwell squirming in Hell and rabid articles focusing on God’s hate for “fagots” and just about everyone else. Under a heading of “Fresh Bread” the new featured article was, “God Hates You!”
Now, I attended a Conservative Baptist church when I was young. I didn’t hear any hate messages and they weren’t out to persecute anyone. In fact, there were a lot of loving people that attended there. Even after my friend made me burst out laughing right during communion causing a spray of cracker crumbs and Welches grape juice to splatter the back of the pew in front of us, no one smacked us or made us leave. And that’s probably the case with as many “Baptist” churches as with any other brand of religious institution. So the name over the door of any particular “church” doesn’t really mean anything.
But religion is as religion does. I guess religious people need something or someone other than Christ to identify with. And that’s what makes naming Father’s family problematic. I don’t really like to call myself a Christian anymore, because ever since Constantine made Christianity a religion, people under its banner often tend to do what religion does. Besides, Father never named his sons and daughters Christians in the first place.
We can continue to polarize ourselves from one another while placing effective stumbling blocks before those who don’t know Father. Or we could avoid disunity, identity problems and misrepresentation of Christ if we quit calling ourselves names and simply lived and loved in the name of Jesus. Wouldn’t that be novel?
Arthur,
I don't even like identifying myself as a Christian, as even that is misunderstood in our culture. I rather identify myself as a follower of Christ, if asked. I have long hated that question, "where do you go to church", because of what you said. I always struggled with how to answer that question, because I didn't want to look foolish or strange, but, like you mentioned in your post about the Florida fool, isn't that the offense of the cross? Ironic and sad that the cross can be offensive to Christians, who are too stuck in religion to see the truth of His body.
Mark
Post a Comment