Parsing the church
Thabiti,
Looking forward to seeing you in a few weeks!
As for parsing the church and the individual Christian, I agree that we can push this distinction too far. But a distinction exists nonetheless.
So for example, as a Christian, I am commanded to love my wife as Christ loves the Church. This is a universal mandate for all Christian husbands and an entailment of the gospel. But that in no way means that the members of CHBC are equally commanded to love my wife as Christ loves the church.
No doubt, as all the husbands in our church love their wives in the pattern of Ephesians 5, the worldly communities of which we are a part will take notice. There will be a collective, social impact. But the responsibility remains several, not joint. The church can't do this for me, or without me, and I'm responsible to fulfill this command whether or not the rest of the church backs me up in it.
I think this is particularly useful in helping us relate "mercy ministry" to the church. It seems to me that mercy ministry is simply an application of the command to "love your neighbor as yourself." That command hits each one of us individually. We can't say we've obeyed the command to love simply by pointing to other people in our church that are loving others on behalf of the church. In fact, isn't the command to love by its very nature inescapably several, rather than joint? Of course, individuals can band together, pool their resources and talents, become highly efficient and skilled in the delivery of physical mercy on a large scale. But it's still in fulfillment of the command to love, which rests upon me.
I think this is fundamentally different from commands like Hebrews 10:25, "Don't forsake the assembling together", or Mat 28:19-20, "Go and make disciples of all nations, etc." These are examples of commands given to the church, as the church. As a member of a local church, I should support the fulfillment of these commands. But the church can and should go on without me should I refuse to help. They are fundamentally joint responsibilities.
So I don't mean to separate the identity of the church from the believer, as McKanna writes, but I don't think they are identical either, or that they exhaust each other. I am a member of a local church. I am also a citizen of a heavenly kingdom. I have responsibilities and privileges as a result of both memberships. They are related and overlap, and inextricably related at this point of redemptive history, but they aren't the same. I'm concerned that we don't help either the church or the individual Christian by blurring this distinction. Frankly, I'd like to see more ministries of mercy and social impact amongst the members of our church, not less. But so long as people think its the responsibility of the church, I fear the opposite will occur.
I don't know if this answers your question about parsing, and I know it raises a host of other questions, but that's the best I can do between dinner and Bible Study!
If I may continue, respectfully...
Hypothetically speaking, what if the church recognizes that you or perhaps several of the men of your church are not loving their wives as you/they should? Does that become the church's responsibility in a corporate sense, or not? Would you say that it would be wrong or even merely inappropriate to have a men's discipleship group focusing on marriage issues, since this would be a corporate response?
It seems to me that there is room for the church as the church to recognize a need and address it corporately. This should be a need derived from biblical concerns, not merely felt needs, but this might include helping people handle their money rightly, parenting, etc. I know some of you are thinking, "That's exactly what felt-needs types focus on." I'm not saying that this is what the worship service and sermons should focus on, but that the church is right to address these needs as a church as-- and this is key-- as an application of the gospel which would lead to proclamation of the gospel. These are matters of discipleship (for believers) and compassion (for nonbelievers).
Personally, I share some of the nervousness about the way some talk of social "restoration," because we must be careful about what we think we are trying to accomplish. However, I would not want the local church to ignore those who lack food, clothing, and shelter, especially in their own neighborhood and community.
I believe individual responsibility does not rule out a corporate response. But not only is it permissible, it is in fact essential for the world to see our holiness lived out in community. This is a foretaste of the kingdom and a testimony to our living faith.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Mar 5, 2008 10:20:33 PM