Recently, I did a series of postings about the church, what it has become, versus what it was meant to be. What it was meant to be was "community." A community that was exemplified to us by Jesus and the 12 disciples. A community that was exemplified to us by the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A community that pre-existed creation.
Here in America, we often have a skewed sense of community. This is perhaps because we have the luxury of being mobile. We do not stay put in one place for very long. In countries where that luxury is not afforded, where people stay in one place all of their lives, the meaning of community is better understood. But even then, the community as God has designed it is far better than any community man has designed.
We call the church "a family" in order to help ourselves grasp the concept of community that God intends. But dysfunction is rampant in families today, due to prevailing humanism, a turning away from God and trusting in man instead. So that when we try to build a church here in America based on the "family" concept, the church often displays some of the same dysfunctions that many families have. The biggest hindrance to the "family" concept is that the church family lives apart from each other, in the sense that they meet once a week, maybe even twice a week, but are not involved in each others lives other than those brief meetings. How difficult is it for you to get deeply involved in the goings-on in the personal lives of the folks in your church, your brethren? Well, perhaps if you are the pastor or his wife, or an elder or deacon, maybe then you get to be a part of all that goes on in the lives of the brethren. But what about brethren to brethren when neither are leaders in the church? Do they all know what is happening, really happening, in each other's lives? And, if not, is there time enough on Sundays to find out? No, of course not. It's not that we don't want to get involved with each other, it's just that we lead such separate lives. Isn't it? Or is it? Maybe we're afraid of too much involvement; maybe we're afraid that involvement means commitment, one to another. Maybe we're afraid it will all just take up too much of our time. Time is a very precious commodity to us these days, what with husbands and wives both working for the survival of the family. Or in the case of single parents who have even less time to spare.
But do you recall how the first believers functioned as a community? They "lived" in each others' lives. They were together, almost all the time. There was no opportunity to miss out on what was happening in each other's lives. They knew what was happening at all times because they were there to see it happening. That is possible only in close community.
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And 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 2:44-46)
I don't see that they were together only on Sunday for an hour or two or three and then went their separate ways, not to join together again until the following Sunday. Every day they were together "in the temple" ("with one accord" which I believe must have been for the purpose of speaking the Word of God to those who had not received it. Remember that in the synagogues people were free to talk, there was not one leader.) And in the same sentence, probably also daily, "they broke bread from house to house." Every day they were together eating their meals as well in each other's homes. They were able to do this because they were joined together as one in community (even though they apparently maintained individual homes), evidenced by the selling of their possessions, and sharing everything with the brethren. [Please note: I don't believe when they "parted them to all men" this meant they gave to anyone who was in need regardless of their beliefs. I believe it meant they gave to the brethren only, those with whom they were one in Spirit. But amongst the brethren none were excluded.] But we don't really do that. It is as though we are each waiting for someone else to "jump into the water" before we do when it comes to selling possessions and giving it ALL to the brethren. Community God's way doesn't mean the occasional giving that we do; it means a lifestyle of "having all things in common."
Why are we unable to do that, when they did so immediately? What's different? I believe there are two things to consider: 1) this "community" appeared after the 120 disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. But the church today doesn't seem to want that filling as much as those 120 did. Many in the church don't understand the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit, and therefore shy away from too much of that! How many in the church today are willing to submit to the power of God that caused the disciples to appear to be drunk? I'm not talking about a "fake" show of being filled, I mean the real thing. How many of us really want that today? But imagine if we were all filled with the Spirit and walking in the Spirit rather than in the flesh! What would happen then? 2) Jesus set the example with the disciples; a pattern of relationship, if you will, that had existed amongst the members of the Godhead eternally and therefore one with which Jesus was more than able to properly teach. And the 12, having experienced it, could now display it and teach it to the remainder of the 120.
I spent a recent morning with several women from my church. Many of those women I've known for over a year, only one or two of them for much longer. I believe that I love them all without exception, and that's easy to do because they are all such loving gentlewomen themselves. There is something so wonderful and comforting about being in their presence. I love those moments of close community, of sisterhood, but they are so infrequent. And when one is constantly in the thick of spiritual warfare, that camaraderie is uplifting and strengthening, ending all too soon when everyone leaves to go home, not to meet again until church on Sunday. I don't want to have to wait for disastrous situations for that closeness to be an everyday event; not if it's possible to have it now. So how can we have it now?
In the next couple of postings, we'll look at the community that Jesus exemplified, as well as the community exemplified by the Godhead, as we try to learn the answer to that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment