staying close to jesus

The last blog on this topic caused a bit of a ruckus. A nice one, and one well worth pursuing. So lets take it one step further….Most people reading this blog would be aware of the distinctive meaning of the Hebrew word for knowledge; a word that is used from both human intercourse as well as for knowledge of God. The original meaning of the Hebrew verb ‘”to recognise, to know,” in distinction from Western languages, belongs not to the sphere of reflection but to that of personal contact.

The decisive event for ‘knowing’ in Biblical Hebrew is not that one looks at an object, but that one comes into touch with it. This basic difference is developed in the realm of a relation of the soul to other beings, where the fact of mutuality changes everything. At the centre is not a perceiving of one another, but a contact of being–intercourse.. This theme of ‘knowing’ intercourse rises to a remarkable and incomparable height in the relation of God to those He has chosen. (Martin Buber, Good and Evil)

Closely allied to this way of knowing is the role that passion, affection, plays in biblical spirituality. Passion requires participation, involvement, faith. Soren Kierkegaard can say, “…if passion is eliminated, faith no longer exists”. The truth of God can be found only by such a passionate search and by applying one’s whole personality existentially. The criterion of the genuine search for truth is what Kierkegaard called “inwardness” which requires an intense personal concern with it to be able to understand and assimilate it. Perhaps more widely known for this kind of approach was the American revivalist preacher, Jonathan Edwards, made popular by his spiritual classic, The Religious Affections. Edwards maintained that if the heart was left unmoved by the God, no abiding action could, or would, take place. Spirituality, what he called true religion, must include at core, redeem and direct, our spiritual passion. It must involve the heart. And then he goes on to affirm that all great actions spring from the heart.

Just as worldly affections are the springs of worldly actions, so the religion affections are the springs of religious affections……..I am bold in saying this, but I believe that no one is ever changed, either by doctrine, by hearing the word, or by the preaching or teaching of another, unless the affections are moved by these things. No one seeks salvation, no one cried for wisdom, no one wrestles with God, no one ever kneels in prayer or flees from sin, with a heart that remains unaffected. In a word, there is never any great achievement by the things of religion without a heart deeply affected by those things……True religion is placed in the affections. (Jonathan Edwards, About Religious Affections)

Now this is close to what I was trying to say in the previous post. And again it can be subjected to similar ctiticism of sounding individualistic. But as I understand it, it is a dimensional part of what it means to follow Jesus. Community is yet another dimension of discipleship. But it can only be built on the choice of the heart outlined above.

July 22, 2007 | Filed Under discipleship, following jesus |

Comments

38 Responses to “staying close to jesus”

Wes Roberts on July 22nd, 2007 4:53 am

…exceptionally provocative, good and necessary thoughts. Thank you! Keep it comin’…!!!
Richard Clarke on July 22nd, 2007 6:30 am

So it sounds individualistic. Specifically, is there anything wrong with that? While we may dwell in community, we are still individualistic in our reactions, and as Jonathan Edwards points out, our passions in response to a particular call from God.

Missionaries respond to this call. Pastors are called through this response to passion. These are the actions of individuals, prompted by the Holy Spirit, while participating in community…or not. These same actions can happen when we are alone with God, just as Jesus experienced passion and obedience with God in His times of prayer and communion.

God has done great things through individuals who did not always go with the group in the history of His gospel, William Carey comes to mind as someone who did not go with the flow, so to speak, of his missionary community when they called him home after his first tour in India. And the church in India has benefited from this.

This is not to say that any individual, given any whim, biblical or not, should ‘do their own thing’. But, I also believe that the opposite is true. A negative reaction from a community of believers, lacking a biblical basis for the response, does not directly constitute the voice of God to an individual either, especially if the individual has a discipline of communion with God and the Holy Spirit as part of the leadings in their life. Should we say no to this leading, this calling, just because the passion of the community is not also stirred?
Peggy Brown on July 22nd, 2007 12:42 pm

…and very much in line with what we were trying to communicate with the whole perichoresis line.

Wonder where this one will go?
Richard Clarke on July 23rd, 2007 4:59 am

Help! Could you please define what you mean with the perichoresis word? The definitions I have seen do not correlate the what Alan is saying in my mind very well at all, so I would be very interested in what you mean when you use it.
douglas molgaard on July 23rd, 2007 6:44 am

Kierkegaard says it well here:
(Perhaps this is more on the subject of subjective truth)

“If I know that twice two is four, this knowledge is in the highest degree impersonal. Once I know it, I know it, and I need not struggle continuously to make it my own. But the truth of religion is not at all like that: it is a truth that must penetrate my own personal existence or it is nothing; and I must struggle to renew it in my life every day. A learned theologian may be in possession of all the so-called truths of rational theology, able to prove & disprove propositions and generally hold his own dialectically with the best; And yet in his heart God may have died or never lived. On the other hand, an illiterate peasant who knows nothing of formal theology, who may not even be able to state accurately the tenets of his creed . . .Nevertheless may succeed in being religious. He is in the truth, as we say, and people who know him can recognize this fact from his presence, his bearing, his way of life.”
Peggy Brown on July 23rd, 2007 8:23 am

Richard,

I am working on putting some things together on this….we’ve hashed it out here and also over at Jesus Creed…

…stay tuned!
Peggy Brown on July 23rd, 2007 9:15 am

Forgive the length, those not interested in perichoresis…but perichoresis has been popping up in many discussions. In the following Jesus Creed thread, we talk about it at lentgh:

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2529#comments

I commented “…there was a very heavy discussion over at Alan Hirsch’s blog about the Holy Spirit and which member of the Trinity is in the forefront of missional activity. The following link is to the fourth page of the comments and #72 is where I chime in over there about what we were talking about over here. …A Celtic Son chimed in at #77 with a wonderful bit about it, including a link that might be of interest.”

http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/index.php/2007/05/28/distilling-the-message/comment-page-4/#comments

…The gist is this: God’s covenant making with us is his way of bringing the perichoretic reality into human relationships. The Holy Spirit provides the “virtual” connection, as it were. As we “dance” together we are all to do everything we can to help each other “dance” well without stumbling or getting out of step, yada, yada.
This means that we have a primary activity (the dance) and are concerned with how we execute it personally as well as how we execute it with those who also dance.

The “mark” is unhindered flow of the dance, and so “missing the mark” is that which hinders that flow. Our responsibility to faithfully keep covenant means that we are to always be aware of the dance and our part in it. If I am out of step, those around me will be tangled with me. So I watch my step. But I also watch the steps of those with whom I dance…looking for how I may help “lead” when they begin to lose focus. And they do this same “leading” service for me. When another is leading me back into rhythm, I must submit to their lead. To be as little disruption to the dance as possible, these acts of service by leading and submitting must be full of both grace and mercy.

Covenant keeping (obedience) is good dancing technique and style, covenant breaking (sin) is the opposite.

…Actively engaging in the dance, doing my best to keep my focus and step and rhythm, helping others do the same and letting others help me, all empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit, is to set myself apart for God.

…The point of the whole “mark” as target in the Hebrew mind-set is not the “bulls-eye” of perfection, but rather the active restraint of proper focus.

If we are focusing on and participating in the dance, to continue the metaphor, we will hit the target (even if it is one of the outer rings). If we are not focused on the dance, it is impossible to hit what is not in our aim.

The longer we stay in the dance, the better we will be at keeping our focus. The steps will become more sure and like second nature, the rhythm will be smoother and have more depth of feeling and nuanced movement.

And when others respond to our invitation to join the dance, we slow down enough to let them in and show them the steps before we pick up the pace.

One of the secrets to the “dance” image, when referring to the perichoresis, is the music — which is God’s music of grace, holiness, love, joy, delight, etc.. We can only dance when we listen to the music … the way a drummer is overcome by the beat and it completely moves his/her body. (Comment by Scot McKnight — June 6, 2007 @ 12:03 pm)

“The Greek Fathers of the Church describe the life of the Trinity as PERICHORESIS (peri - around; choresis - dancing). Drawing from this profound insight, Bishop Lobo lays the foundation for a refreshing understanding of priestly identity based on the Trinitarian relationship. The Greek Fathers of the Church describe the life of the Trinity as PERICHORESIS. So the three persons of the Trinity are “dancing around”.” From PRIESTLY IDENTITY By Bishop Anthony T. Lobo
(Comment by Mykl Krause — June 6, 2007 @ 3:49 pm)

…Metaphors help me get my brain around language-based concepts and into images and pictures…The language of the dance is precisely to keep sin ever before us–only a step away–instead of filed away in categories that “good” people don’t normally relate to.

…When we see sin as being out of sinc with God’s dance, with our “eyes” on our own self-interest, we can see that we are breaking covenant with God and with our neighbors when we aren’t looking out for their best interests. The “one another” texts of the New Testament speak loudly to me in this realm.

…There is no room to let sin slide through sloppy emotionalism or fear-based timidity–that certainly would be covenant-breaking, as it is not in the best interest of a brother or sister to let them continue on in sin…

…Again, the dance metaphor helps visualize this. It just is not acceptable to allow an out-of-sync dancer to mess up the entire dance. To look away and not acknowledge the lack of focus impacts us all, throws off our steps, and ridicules the dance itself. Instead, those nearby can submit themselves to the need of their neighbor, step out for a moment to help figure out the issue causing the disruption, participate in discerning an appropriate remedy, and urge a return to the dance. If they, in fact, do not want to participate in God’s dance, they must be asked to sit out until such time as they are willing and ready to return.

Many of those outside of the dance look at these out of sync dancers, and their “see no evil” partners, and give the whole troup a name: hypocrites. And, too often, rightly so.

Some day, friends, when I have a functioning website of my own, I can just link to articles there…but that day, sadly, is not today!

Blessings.
Peggy Brown on July 23rd, 2007 9:18 am

My very long comment, with a couple of links, is probably in blog purgatory, waiting for Neal to let it out…
Peggy Brown on July 23rd, 2007 9:19 am

Neal…you are too fast, brother
Peggy Brown on July 23rd, 2007 9:24 am

Bishop Lobo’s link from Mykal Krause didn’t come through. It is here:

http://www.rc.net/malaysia/collegegeneral/lobo.htm
Richard Clarke on July 23rd, 2007 11:16 am

Thanks Peggy, we may be a little closer to understanding the usage of the word. However, I see nothing in what you wrote (and/or linked to) that underscored the negative reaction that was generated to Alan’s post on the basis of too much individualism. Can you shed a little more light on this?
Celtic Son on July 23rd, 2007 5:09 pm

Richard,

from my perspective any “negative reaction” from me to Alan’s post, is simply the continuation of discussion, rather than intended to be either simply “negative” or “reaction” - although of course technically it is both. Elsewhere I have acknowledged that, although there are areas of disagreement, I sincerely appreciate Alan and his thinking - without his initial post we wouldn’t even be engaging in this discussion.

Having made the disclaimer; let me attempt to summarise the discussion - from my perspective - and to shed a little more light on it…

I raised the issue of community in post #7 on the “existence communication” thread, because I have a genuine concern that one of the reasons for the “dying” of the church in the west, is that we have lost sight of the biblical concept of community. Our westernised mindset - with one of the pillars being existentialism - idolises the concept of the “individual.” I see the potential in “missional church” to rebirth an authentic, holistic community, but we seem determined to drag our cultural “individualism” around with us… which, to my mind, is one of the fundamental reasons the exisitng modernist model is dying. My perception is that philosophical concepts of existentialism feed into the dominant definition, and priority, of the “individual” in western culture.

I believe this fundamental concept of the “individual” is contrary to biblical imperatives and in comment #13 I introduced “perichoresis” as a foundational concept, which is a long-standing model in Trinitarian orthodoxy. In comment #34 Peggy also used the concept of perichoresis, and in comment #36 Richard, you presented a “negative reaction” to the way the doctrine was being applied. In response to your “disagreement” I raised a number of biblical passages - a few among many possibilities - to support the use of “perichoresis” in relationship to the church. Rather than debate the biblical basis of the passages referred to, Alan responded by stating “perichoresis is a wonderful doctrine, but it sounds awfully gnostic.” It is a major concern to me that none of the reactions to the use of “perichoresis” have been founded on any Scriptural basis, nor has there been response to the Biblical passages used to support the use of “perichoresis.” Any negative reaction to the introduction of perichoresis is unsupported Biblically and historically.

Alan continued in post #43 by stating that his “concern remains however, that in practice this [perichoresis] is another form of ontological/mystical mumbo-jumbo” Again, no biblical basis for the opinion and frankly it’s a poor unsupported response, not typical of Alan. In post #48 I asked some questions, based on the previous biblical support I had suggested, which again were not replied to… I’m not concerned so much that every question I ask gets answered (I tend to ignore questions or comments that I perceive won’t take the discussion forwards) but I am concerned that there is no real debate on a biblical basis, simply the exchange of unsupported opinions. In comment #51 there is finally support from a passage of Scripture… but used inaccurately - I really don’t understand how it can be suggested that Paul intends Romans 12 to be applied to individuals per se, when in its context it is written to a church.

Perhaps Peggy’s definition has helped to see that, one way to view our relationship with God, is that we are brought into Christ, to participate in the great dance. The conflict, with the dominant western concept of the “individual,” is that the western concept of the “individual” lacks a place for submission to the dancing community…

Does that shed further light… or further obscure?

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Patrick on July 23rd, 2007 10:50 pm

There are individuals in a dance. The dance is not made of a borg mentality in which the individual is subsumed within the community. Trinitarian thought, from the Greek direction of course, insists fully on the individual persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The theological phrase used to describe this is unity in diversity. It is the gathering of individuals that form the whole community that make it such a brilliant concept.

There are all kinds of dancing and a community dance in which there is no differentiation and no individuality is like country line dancing. Only, if we carry the analogy to us, we need to see that the Trinitarian persons do in fact have different steps and different roles, all participating in the unity of God’s fullness.

In the same way Romans 12 is absolutely for individuals. How can a community offer something in total without either unified as individuals or by negating the individuality of each person in charge.

When we brush aside community issues we are left with a destructive individualism. However when we overemphasize community we can veer into the same problems communism endured, which often are expressed not by Jesus as the head but by domineering control and leadership and loss of the Spirit’s work in and through each participant.

I have to become fully me. Others in my community have to become fully them. I have to learn the steps I’ve been given and they learn the steps they’ve been given. Those are the gifts in action.

This is line dancing, this is ballet or ball room dancing. The beauty is in the individuals unique contribution being gathered together in a unified whole.

Which is precisely why Paul emphasizes the various roles within a community, certainly not least of which are the APEST list in Ephesians 4 . “To each,” Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12 , “is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” To each, for each. Individuals fully participating and in doing this the whole is formed with God’s fullness. There is no other form of community other than individual participation with the Holy Spirit who uses and calls each person to dance in a unique way for the broader mission of God in gathering all to himself.

In negating the individual, it so often is the case that the nebulous “community” becomes abusive, and more often than not control has to be asserted in which “some animals are more equal than others.” The dance is lost as a few people feel they need to manage the steps, and make everyone move in the same way.

Dangers exist on both sides. We have to emphasize both individuality and community, otherwise we have a distorted picture of perichoresis.

Peggy, loved your definition above.
Patrick on July 23rd, 2007 10:52 pm

The above could use a bit of editing, I know. The sun isn’t yet up, and I’m solar powered. Hope it made sense.
Richard Clarke on July 24th, 2007 12:16 am

It did to me. CS, I do not disagree with some of what you are saying. Some I do. Paul writes to churches, that is a fact. That is also the only way he had of communicating to the groups. But, the context of the messages, even through the translations we have which are often lacking, is clearly a call for individuals to get uncomfortable and get on with God.

However, I want to comment briefly on the perichoresis point. The reason you do not see a Biblical response to the concept from many of us is that we do not see it as a Biblical concept in relationship to the church. It was used originally to try and explain the way in which the trinity worked together as one while still being active as three distinct individuals. This was felt to be necessary at the time. It is a relatively new concept in the life of the church I have a hard time with taking this concept and suggesting that we as the church should act and react as God would. Get closer to it, yes most definitely. Perfect it, as God…this is where it goes toward Gnostic thinking, at least as I look at it.

There is much support for community in the Scriptures. Patrick has mentioned some of them that do not cause community to rise to the level I think you are envisioning. My reading of Scripture leads me to see community as very necessary in terms of supporting each other and our very different functions and gifts, helping each other when some of our activities and circumstances may not allow for the physical requirements to be met, and encouraging each other in our efforts as we meet God.

If we believe in a model that we are to follow, I believe that the Gospels and Acts are the activity models. Jesus did not stay in one place. He had a place that they generally came and went from, but He did not build a church there and ask everyone to come to Him. Even the churches later in the New Testament (at least before Christendom) were in homes yes, but not necessarily the same one all the time.

To me, the early church, the one that actually worked closest to what was envisioned (at least historically, this is usually the case with humans) was community empowered but not community focused from my reading. To me, perichoresis would suggest a one mind, no disagreement model. I do see God believing that we, as created beings, can aspire to acting like God, as the creator, to the level the perichoresis model suggests. We are created differently while still in the image of God.

Again, I want to be clear. I agree with the perichoresis model applied to the trinity, in order to use it to explain oneness and threeness simultaneously if you will. My issue is with the application of this theological idea, which was intended to explain something that we have no human reference point to understand, to the church. I do not see a scriptural basis for this. I think that is why Alan is referring to it as somewhat Gnostic.
Celtic Son on July 24th, 2007 12:20 am

Hullo-o-o Patrick…

I’m not sure that it’s going to be helpful to take this line of thinking much further. It seems I have a different understanding of perichoresis, its place and significance, than Alan and others have expressed. This has led me to a different understanding of “body” and “community” that I sincerely believe is lacking in the church… Your comments basically refer to an “abuse” of community as a problem - which I agree with - rather than community itself as the issue.

I don’t disagree with your conclusion that dangers exist in the extremes, however, if you visit some of my comments on the previous thread, you’ll note my concern is ultimately not an “either/or” but a concern over emphasis… Our westernised cultural predisposition is to focus predominantly on the context of the individual, while the New Testament emphasis is predominantly on community. If we are genuinely seeking to engage with the New Testament concept of ecclesia, then there is a need to identify and address issues in our own culture that limit that - one of which is the elevation of the concept of the individual in our culture.

I’ve cut and pasted the following from a post I’ve just made in response to Richard on the previous thread…

The passion in my posts is something that I have fought not to lose and that I fight to maintain. Despite the pain and disappointments of church life, I remain committed to living in community…

Eberhard Arnold wrote;

“we have been overwhelmed by a certainty – a certainty that has its origin and power in the Source of everything that exists. We acknowledge God as this Source. We must live in community because all life created by God exists in a communal order and works toward community.”

He wrote that as a man who preached what he practiced, I attempt to do likewise. I reckon at this stage I’ll stop pushing my barrow around the farmyard and simply agree to differ…

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Richard Clarke on July 24th, 2007 12:39 am

I agree with CS, that we have exhausted the useful life if this discussion with regards to perichoresis. And I think that the subject at hand, staying close to Jesus, is more important.

Alan mentions passion. I somewhat understand passion, having been married for 31 years, he said, tongue in cheek. I think what Alan is getting to here, is part of what we have been dancing around. Passion is an emotion that is an individual one. It may or may not be shared by another individual, but is not like to be evenly spread across a group evenly.

Passion for God, which is not very existential, must add acting to emotion. Isn’t this what we want in our relationship with God. A transition point which moves us from an intellectual knowledge base to a passion filled mobilization to move in the direction God is calling us (uh oh, individual thing again) towards with our gifts and talents? I think passion is a requirement.
Celtic Son on July 24th, 2007 1:15 am

I’d have to say Richard that perichoresis provides a significant perspective to the discussion at hand… you can’t stay close to Jesus without encountering Him in relational community in the Godhead!

My point was not that the discussion is exhausted, but that there is a lack of reference points to hang the discussion on. I simply recognise that without a sufficient field of reference, my point is poorly made and we are not getting anywhere. As Alan suggested “I am not quite sure it can be easily settled in a blog setting.”

For anyone interested in further thinking on some of these issues;

An understanding of perichoresis and its application to a theological anthropology would be assisted by reading Stanley Grenz “The social God and the relational self” and Leonardo Boff “Trinity and Society.” Other writers on perichoresis and the relational aspects of God that impact humanity are Barth, Moltmann and T.F. Torrance.

While Dr Baxter Kruger might push the envelope, some of his writing on perichoresis, related to the church is more accessible. And Eberhard Arnorld’s little book “Why we live in community” with interpretive talks by Thomas Merton is a very practical - if demanding - challenge to embrace authentic community…

Each of these writers can contribute to a more clearly articulated perspective than I have been able to, and which I believe they’d argue is crucial to the future of the church…

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Peggy Brown on July 24th, 2007 8:18 am

…back to stir the pot a bit more…

I agree with both Alan and CS that this is a very difficult thing to communicate in this blog format. But since we have no alternatives, I’m willing to give it a little more time.

I keep being struck by the black/white stance that seems to return like a boomerang…when what we need is to step back, again, to look at the concept behind the words.

We cannot separate the individual from the communal nature of the Body of Christ. We are one Body but many parts….if you don’t have the parts working properly, the Body suffers. It is clearly a both/and–and in all cases, balance must be properly struck or disease strikes: cancer in the case of out of control cells and some kind of arthritis when loss of flexibility makes things rigid. I am sure there are countless examples…

Perhaps the idea of the dance is too limiting for those who see line dancing as one extreme and club dancing as the other….

What about choral or orchestral images? There are those who love the chanting…but only chanting is too shallow. Soloists are wonderful, but lack depth. Duets, trios, quartettes, octettes, ensembles…all wonderful.

But try to sing Handel’s Messiah with an ensemble accompanied only by piano. It will sound paltry and pathetic–if you have heard it sung in an acoustically wonderful building with full choir (including, of course, the soloists and duets and wonderful sectionals) and full orchestra and pipe organ…oh, my goodness–I’ve got goose bumps as I type!

And anyone who has been with an excellent choral director will know the importance of each individual singer listening to those around–for pitch and volume and tone–so that each section has one, solitary voice made up of all the individual voices. This takes submission of the individual voice to the leadership of the choral director and the best interest of the whole choir and it’s mission to properly sing the composer’s work!

And yet there are more pieces to be sung and played than Handel’s Messiah! The creative opportunities are endless…but the concepts of choral work are consistent.

For every Handel we also have to hear songs that are poorly repetitive (in music and words), that have no parts…only a solitary melody…what a shame to have only one kind of music.

When you read that there is constant singing of praise to God in heaven, do you think of a simple chorus or do you think of chant or do you think of full eight-part chorus with descant? I say YES to all!

The point is that we each have the ability to praise and serve our God together as individuals gathered into the Body of Christ. But we must follow the direction of the Christ, the head, so that we are going where he wants us to go.

And the presence of the Holy Spirit in each of these individual “members” allows for countless local manifestations of this amazing Body of Christ in every culture and nation and tongue…such outrageous diversity!

But, as I have said previously, the Body of Christ too often looks quadriplegic…with most senses in tact–sight, hearing, smell, speech–but feeling is lost because of the disconnect between the different parts by severed nerves.

The Holy Spirit functions as the nervous system in this Body of Christ, so when we have lost our sense of feeling by not being connected to Christ and each other in the Spirit, there is no touching or walking or dancing–no true “knowing” by intimate contact.

…it makes me weep…and yet through my tears I have a vision of a Body of Christ that dances and sings…where the Holy Spirit has brought about the healing of damaged and severed nerves…

…but the individuals must submit to the Holy Spirit for this healing, and the Body must submit to the Holy Spirit as the nervous system, so that Christ can actually function as the head of the Church.

…and so we keep moving forward, listening deeply and fully so as not to miss the still, small voice.

Be blessed…
Celtic Son on July 24th, 2007 8:55 am

Thanks Peggy…

luvyerwurk!

A Celtic Son
Richard Clarke on July 24th, 2007 9:44 am

Thanks Peggy, that is a good analogy. And it allows me to extend it a little and maybe we can move toward some clarity. A large part of my role in most of the churches I have been a part of has been music. I am a choir director and musician by vocation.

Let’s go back to Handel. In my reading of Scripture, I agree that we see the ideal of the choir singing in harmony with each other. But, what we see in Romans 12 is the combination of the choir and the soloist…at the same time. Stretching to make that next sacrifice as a part of the whole. When we see Peter in Acts, preaching to the assembled crowd during Pentecost, he is still part of the choir, and a soloist. When the scripture mentions that every one of them heard the message in their own language. Different people speaking to them of the gospel so that each of them had a context in their own language.

In “The Shaping of Things to Come”, Alan and Michael Frost work through the concept of the APEST model for leaders and believers. In their discussion they suggest that all leadership groups need a mix of these five major ingredients into a community of growth. And that many of our existing communities are missing at least several of them. I know that my community is.

However, they go on to say that in their belief and reading of Ephesians 4 , that each of the members of a Christian community has some of at least one of these giftings in their lives. And that since there is a priesthood of believers, that none of us are more important in the mix than any other one. Which then seriously damages much of the current leadership frameworks that have produced such a great track record of spreading the Gospel during the Christendom model…not (I hope I have not offended anyone too much here). According to George Barna, the average church of 100 people has seen 1 person saved per year on average. This is not community, it is not individualism, it is abysmal!

I had a meeting with part of the leadership of our community a week ago. I presented some of the ideas that would probably sound pretty tame to most of you since you are working on the cutting edge of mission, I hope you are anyway. I was told that my ideas of asking everyone in the community to commit to a minimal standard of participation and actual demonstration of knowledge about the mission we are on together was too threatening to the culture of the group.

I am very tired of playing follow the leader in community when the leader is not going where my Bible says we are supposed to go and act the way my Bible says we are supposed to act in order to serve the community. I believe community is important as a conduit to frame the work of individuals. I do not believe that it is an end onto itself which then turns into a bless me club with great missionary giving and no witness. The quote that Alan used from T. S. Eliot in his last post spoke great volumes to me. I will end my post with it and thank you for your prayers as I seek God’s direction in the midst of my ‘community’.

“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.” — T. S. Eliot
Celtic Son on July 24th, 2007 11:24 am

Hi Richard…

I do empathise with your situation being “tired of playing follow the leader in community when the leader is not going where my Bible says we are supposed to go and act the way my Bible says we are supposed to act in order to serve the community.” That was a major motivation that led me out of the only other church I have really belonged to, prior to our current experience. Perhaps our journey might give you a little understanding of my faith and hope in “community,” and perhaps encourage you…

We began our journey 7 years ago attempting to be who we “are supposed to [be] and act the way [the]Bible says we are supposed to act in order to serve the community.” The area that I sensed a calling to had seen 4 churches start and finish within 2-3 years in the previous decade, and has seen two more start and finish since we began our journey. Several people suggested strongly that it was not a place to start a church community - I was even offered a salary of $70,000 a year to go and start something in another community! I felt more strongly that I have been called by God to this community and so with only our own resources my wife and I, with the support of 2 other families, began our journey. Such is the calling of God that we sold our home and moved into our community, our children go to school and my wife and I both work locally. It has not always been an easy journey and of the three families who began the journey we are the only remaining family.

However, in the past seven years we have been joined now by over 100 others - there are 147 people who have made a commitment to our church community - the oldest will be 95 this year and we have sadly just buried a stillborn child. Many who joined were disaffected “Christians” not involved in any church community, but almost 40% of the community are people who were not connected in Christ at all before, some of them are now key leaders in the life of the church community. We are far from a community that is “an end onto [sic] itself which then turns into a bless me club with great missionary giving and no witness” - I suspect that your current experience of “community” has negatively coloured your concept of “community,” and in part disabled you from hearing what I have tried to convey - the other disability has been mine in trying unsuccessfully to express what I mean.

We actively seek to go into the world and to make disciples - we seek to be missional and to develop missional disciples, without making great announcements about that or using technical language. We run support groups for senior people and playgroups for young families in our community, every week. We also have a number of smaller groups meeting each week - currently over 60% of our adult members are involved. Two of our leaders are long term volunteers on the management committee for a local secular youth service, we also run a weekly youth group with most of the attendees coming from outside of church families. We run an annual community day, giving free gifts, food and drinks to our community and also give away food hampers in the Christmas season. We have given $1,000’s to our local schools - purchased library books, supported restorative justice seminars etc - we had 100 people from our local community, including 50 from our church community, spend a day cleaning up a local school, we also just gave $10,000 to another church we found out was struggling financially.

We support a couple of people with addictive patterns who are trying to clean up, we have a ministry to people with mental health issues. We are currently running an eight week evening discipleship teaching on prayer, which has almost 40% of our church community involved and many of them are also involved in our community ventures - prayer is a vital foundation in all that we do.

We also partially support five missionary people across the world and are in the planning stages to raise funds to build a home for AIDS orphaned children in Uganda - planned for early 2009, since we project it will take us that long to raise the funds and co-ordinate the team that will go. We run a weekly Sunday gathering with singing and preaching, which is a key event in our week - the brunch afterwards extends longer than the “service”. Almost 80% of the people in the church community have a role in the Sunday gathering on a monthly basis. Our small groups will each take an opportunity to co-ordinate and run the gathering, to personalise and add their creativity to the event…

It’s not all successful missional church, I have not reported some of our spectacular failures - we ran an alt worship service in our community for a year with no uptake at all. We have enthusiastically gone into some ventures only to find that we are completely unprepared and ill-equipped. I have asked some people to join us in leadership, only to find that they were more interested in title than service. I have made many mistakes along the way… but God has been gracious and our community have been forgiving!There are, of course, also people who have come and gone and we have been accused of having “high expectations” for involvement… to my way of thinking most of that criticism is the response of “individualism” to the demands of community… but of course I would think that!

My journey is not yours Richard, but I would ask… is God calling you out? Is it time to turn your disappointment with what is not, into motivation for what should be? What do you have to lose? Imagine for a moment the possibilities of God at work in your community, calling Jesus’ followers to walk into works that He prepared in advance for them to walk into… Perhaps you are not called to lead that way, but without the other two families who prompted us to start - they both independently called us with a “word from God” to join us in a new venture - perhaps we would not be here either. Food for thought my friend…

Slainte

A Celtic Son
Peggy Brown on July 24th, 2007 11:42 am

Okay…one last bit and then I’m finished for today (maybe)

When we look at the priesthood of the believers, all of whom have been gifted by the Holy Spirit for the work of ministry and for the building up of the body, we see the entire Body of Christ. The APEST gifts are present, both corporally and individually. Out of the larger Body, however, the Holy Spirit gifts some APEST members for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry.

Yes, this does mess with the CEO and all hierarchical models of leadership…and about time, I say

Of course you are tired, Richard! You have been trying to discern the subtle tune of Christ and watch him conduct to follow his lead while “usurpers” are standing in your way, blocking your view and singing from a different page….

“Usurpers” will likely step on more toes than your “not” comment earlier… Not meaning to be cranky, friends…

You are among like-minded and like-experienced friends, Richard.

Be blessed.
Peggy Brown on July 24th, 2007 11:44 am

Hmmm…CS snuck in there again while I was posting…I’ll have to go back and read what he had to say!
Peggy Brown on July 24th, 2007 11:50 am

Yes, CS…luvyerwurk, brother!
alan hirsch on July 24th, 2007 5:48 pm

I think I am now way too behind in all this. I am just going to watch from the sidelines now.
Richard Clarke on July 25th, 2007 12:28 am

Reset! It is a brand new day. The sun is just coming up here on the left coast of the US. And God is with us all.

So Alan, if we do the existential thing or we don’t, what’s next? How do we move closer?

You have started into, I think, a discussion of some of the characteristics of the listeners that the New Testament was probably written to. Much of the culture then was attuned to the super-natural. Ours is beginning to trend that way in a post-modern way. Do you parallels in the way we should be missional in approaching those God puts in our path?
don-nie on July 25th, 2007 2:12 am

So, reading through this and the last post and some of the comments I am a little confused on this. This specific form of knowledge, the encountering if you will, is something I am really interested in. But, are you arguing for a knowledge or experience of God from this sort of encountering, rather than beholding. Or the basis of community grounded in passionate encountering?

Knowledge of God and knowledge of the other (inifinte as the other may be, i.e. Levinas) this encountering process is going to be two different things. How one encounters the infinite divine and how encounters the other would seem radically different. So, are you arguing for an encounter of God that is revolved around this participatory existential epistemology, or a formation of community and encounter of the other this way? Just some clarification.
Espen on July 25th, 2007 3:50 am

Maybe 1 John 1 could be helpful in this discussion. In verses 3,4 John writes:

“We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.”

It’s all about fellowship I guess communitas comes in here someplace?
Patrick on July 25th, 2007 11:51 pm

Only loosely related but I just want to note that, if I remember correctly, the Hebrew word for “I know” has become more popularly understood as a small, green, very old master of the Force.

Do or do not… there is no try.
Peggy Brown on July 26th, 2007 3:36 am

Patrick — LOL

That would be “yada” not Yoda, dude!

But I agree with his statement and would add this one as well:

…already know you that which you need.

If we would do (not try) that which we already know, we would be lightyears ahead of the game
Patrick on July 26th, 2007 3:55 am

Peggy, don’t oppress me with your rigid massoretic vowel points.

And it’s absolutely true your quote. We already know. The trick is getting on to doing it.
Richard Clarke on July 26th, 2007 6:50 am

And that takes us back to the point of the current entry by Alan…

‘It is Christ working in us, not we ourselves’ to badly paraphrase the verse. We need to be close to, to know Him, in order to allow the power of the Holy Spirit to flow in and through us.

It also reminds me of the frog and the lily pad story…which you may have heard. Three frogs are sitting on a lily pad and one decides to jump off. How many are left…three, he decided but never took any action.

We are being called. Are we listening? I put myself in this question most definitely!
Peggy Brown on July 26th, 2007 9:39 am

And, Richard, I think that he means for us to know him by knowing each other–the Holy Spirit in me recognizing the Holy Spirit in you–and together, as the Body of Christ, we are connected to the Head and follow his lead.

It is Father-Son-Holy Spirit moving around and in and through us–individually and corporately–when we sing and dance the Ancient Star Song, as in Calvin Miller’s “Singer” books….
Richard Clarke on July 29th, 2007 3:10 pm

I think He wants us to know Him by knowing Him. He wants us to see His works in others, participate in them, be used by Him. Each of us needs to know Him.
wasabi on August 2nd, 2007 7:51 am

Just a thought about community:

Belonging to God as the Body of Christ means that we belong to each other in order to serve each other to serve God.
Peggy Brown on August 2nd, 2007 9:56 am

wasabi,

join the dance, brother

–and search the site for “perichoretic” if you want all the background on the dance I’m talking about
wasabi on August 3rd, 2007 3:04 am

Thanks Peggy.

A couple more thoughts about community.

There is a sense in which God does not call us to build the ideal community. As the Body of Christ, we are the ideal community. We do not build the ideal community, God himself is building the ideal community of “living stones.”

Here’s something the Bible talks about with reference to prayer, but I think it may apply to community as well. We do not receive because we do not ask. We do not receive the blessings of community because we do not ask anything of other members of the Body of Christ. Our goal is to be self-sufficient (depending on God empowers us to be independent of others), and keep our options open even while being a part of the Body of Christ. Asking for help, for another’s cooperation puts us in debt, ties us to another we might not otherwise choose to be tied to. Writing this leads me to a third thought.

A sign of a healthy community is a lot of mutual “indebtedness,” with resulting gratitude and joy.