In our most recent podcast, Robin Foster made a statement that really jumped out at me the last time I listened to it. We were talking about the subject of “polyamory,” a concept that Dr. Albert Mohler addressed in a recent radio program. In discussing what this strange concept says about the state of marriage, Robin pointed out that much of the blame for the disintegration of marriage in our culture can be placed at the feet of evangelical Christians. He then said, “The rugged individualism of the last century has overtaken the theology of the church.”
At first blush, the demise of marriage may seem unrelated to this loss of the “theology of the church” that Robin identified, but I want to suggest that the two are very much related. In that discussion, we talked about a deemphasis upon ecclesiology that has also been an effect of this individualism. In the decline of a strong ecclesiology, many important things were lost, including redemptive church discipline and a sense on the part of church members of their place in the body. What has been lost is any sense of the real-life implications of Paul’s elegant description of the church in 1 Corinthians:
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
1 Corinthians 12:21-26 (ESV)
A study by the Barna Group several years ago famously showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians was higher than that of atheists and agnostics, and the breakdown of the numbers showed that Baptists were leading the way in this sad statistic. While untold amounts of ink have been spilled on the possible reasons for this seemingly counter intuitive reality, I would like to suggest that the primary cause is what Robin identified with the words I quoted above.
In our contemporary churches, the eye would not overtly say to the hand, “I have no need of you.” But the relationship between them would be such that the hand would certainly understand that from the eye’s point of view, what happens in the eye’s personal life is none of the hand’s business. I think I’ve stretched Paul’s inspired analogy far enough, but I trust I’ve made my point. No longer do we see ourselves as members of one another; we see ourselves as individuals who interact, sometimes on a weekly basis, sometimes less. No longer do we share life with one another. The “older women” Paul talks about in Titus 2 are today more likely to be gossiping with one another about what is going on in the troubled marriages of the younger women than they are to be “teach[ing] what is good.” Older men no longer see a need to be “sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.” Too often, they just want to get along, and in all of this, the biblical community is lost.
If our churches were, as I said in our podcast discussion, more than just venues in which to hold wedding ceremonies, but rather they were authentic biblical communities of faith, wherein we are involved in one another’s lives, these divorce statistics will begin a drastic turnaround. When we love one another enough to invade what our society so values as “privacy,” in order to encourage, challenge, and hold accountable the other members of the body, we will begin to be more than just props in a wedding, or necessary signatures on a state-issued certificate. We will be the community that takes responsibility for the success of the marriage, and we will be “rejoicing together” at that success.
Brother Wes,
Very good article….
The lack of love in many congregations is clearly seen in the statistics. What is still startling though to me is the blindness to the cause. Having grown up in a Baptist home and church, the individuality of the church member is taught straight from the constitution of each of the churches. The overwhelmingly misunderstood concept is democracy. Most church members no little more than it is “their” vote that is important, just as we do in America (show up at the voting booth). Stand for your rights! This is highly individualistic and this is what the children of churches reap as they depend upon this American type democracy for their church.
If what you say is true from the Apostle Paul (and I certainly have no doubt whatsoever)….then how we teach this “democracy” is ….
“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”
1 Corinthians 12:21-26 (ESV)
One thing that we are careful to teach in our congregation is when we come together we affirm in unity,..we take the time to have everyone understand in great detail and all come together in agreement before we move on. You may say this is impossible, but I can guarantee you it is not impossible,…I would say it is essential. In fact, it is what Paul is speaking about with the Corinthians, since Americanized democracy was not the congregational mooring that was known out of Jerusalem.
So when we conduct weddings for instance, our church family is the theme for the couple as they give testimony before us of their love and commitment to God. That is also the reason that our folks disciple and each are free and expected to baptize, because they understand the Lords command to a dead world and their responsibility with the gospel.
Again, good article… and I pray that more churches really understand what brand of “democracy” they are prepared to teach.
Blessings,
Chris
Well said my friend. Better than I could.
BTW, don’t forget to call me before three so I can tell you what to preach this Sunday.
:-)
Robin,
Thanks for your kind words. I’ll check in with you soon on the sermon. :)
Chris,
Thanks for your comment as well. Your words regarding “American type democracy” are spot on. Dr. Alan Branch wrote an outstanding “First Person” article several years ago in which he identified this very problem. He points to the heart of the matter with his identification of “ecclesiology that is more influenced by American civics than by the New Testament.” I highly recommend his article.
Thanks again for your input.
Brother Wes,
Branch’s article does steer the church in the right direction, yet he only scratches the surface of the problem with misinterpreting “democratic processes”. Even though I understand what may be meant by those words in the BFM2000, it is an unfortunate add to the “faith and message” that has called forward much confusion, especially in America. The terms are ambiguous by characterizing the practice of “social equality” by voting,….which is an unfortunate and alien concept to the church.
A better concept is “affirmation and unity”, which is buttressed in patience, kindness, gentleness, longsuffering, etc. found exposed by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God. If that were to be discovered and rediscovered in the churches,… we may be able revisit the benefit of announcing in a faith and message a concept of “democratic processes” and the reality of the effectiveness it purports to bring…. While in its absence begin to understand with greater fidelity the “The Presence of These Witnesses” as was done previously in the convention.
Blessings,
Chris
Maybe this is from far out in left field, but I’ve been thinking about the idea you present here since we arrived in the US on our Stateside assignment last June. We’re IMB missionaries enjoying a summer here in the US.
You mention the loss of “a sense on the part of church members of their place in the body.” One way I see this is especially evident in the Sunday morning worship time, and the way churches “do” music today.
While in the US, we’re doing a lot of traveling, and we’ve been in a number of different SBC churches. In most churches the music seems to be much louder than it was a decade ago. The musicians/singers up front are amplified and the sound is pumped throughout the sanctuary at levels that drown out any congregational singing. This makes no sense to me. As I look around at people standing near me, I see that many are not singing, or just barely singing. Many are just watching those on the platform. They’ve become spectators, not worshipers.
Have we become so much of an “American Idol culture” that we think I’m either star-quality or, if not, I’m just part of the audience, enjoying the entertainment or judging the ability of the performer?
I wish that I could hear those around me singing their hearts out as we worship together, praising the One who is worthy of our praise. Doing so is pleasing to God, and maybe it would contribute to each person’s sense of fellowship, unity and purpose within the Body of Christ.
Katie
Katie,
Thanks for your comment; I don’t think it’s “out in left field” at all. You’ve identified another telling sign of our having lost the sense of community. And it’s not just in large churches with amplified praise teams; I see it in small churches as well. Very few people are joining their voices with others in worship. Certainly it can contribute to our sense of fellowship, but if the fellowship were otherwise what it should be, I think it would be reflected in corporate worship as well.
I have noticed it at all levels to about the music. At camps we bring in praise bands to sing the kids are not given the opportunity to sing in the choir or do a special. When I was going not that long ago I am only 36 kids tried out to do solos and also sang in the choir they had a part in the service. Then we started following the Willowcreek Model that folks want to observe not participate. I also disagree with the idea of target churches where we reach one group or demographic. The body of Christ is diverse I think the church should be diversed. I agree closely with what Piper said the reason missions exist is that worship does not. I think that is the reason so many types of churches exist sometimes is that maybe if we were really honest we would say it has become about us not about Him
Personally, I see voting in the New Testament. I don’t know how we could read pronouncements about what the “majority” of the congregation did or what “found favor” in the congregation unless either (a) Christ had endowed the leaders of all of the NT churches with ESP, or (b) they measured somehow the percentage of people in the congregation who were in favor as well as those who were opposed.
Brother Bart,
There is only one context that has been rendered in some translations as “majority”, which other go even further to argue the same text means “all”. There is no need for ESP in any congregation. The context of the decisions made in the NT seem to lean more toward a full agreement of those present or a complete affirmation of the congregation.
This style of decision making, affirmation by all, does lead congregations to build unity, and not splinter off into “voting” factions which are lived out in the American democratic ways of individualism born out and taught in many congregations. It is American to have my vote tallied, but that style of decision making is also not a foundational principle supported in scripture. It is popular though.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
It takes a count not only to indicate “majority” (which is far-and-away the predominant translation and is the plain meaning of the word) but also to indicate preponderance or even “all.” The only way to know that all are in support of something is to give people an opportunity to say that they are not in support, and then to find that all vote in favor.
I’m a rabid opponent of moving forward on 51-49 counts. We just don’t do that here. We make decisions when the preponderance of our congregation has reached consensus with regards to what is the leadership of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
I agree that many abuses have arisen out of congregationalism. The act of voting is not among them. It’s what happens after.
Brother Bart,
Just saw your post on this ….. I may beg to differ on the predominant translation, but I am also not trying to defend that some type of affirmation (some call it vote) was in process in this early church meeting. Because as you say, how else will you know if you have or do not have opposition.
Although we do not do paper voting, we affirm (where all are expected to participate in discussing the question of should we or shouldn’t we) If a complete affirmation with the congregation is not reached then we do not move forward. This is a tedious and rewarding exercise each and every time.
So the congregation (all the Spiritually gifted) is always involved, 100%. The basis of the “all” as rendered in the passage can be retained as an affirmation of the many that gather as a congregation. Dissent appears to be absent, …at least in the scripture.
Blessings,
Chris