unbroken mold: does the faith change?

July 9, 2007

Been reading an author from a different "strain" of American Protestantism from my own. The book is called Christianity for the Rest of Us by Diane Butler Bass. It’s sometimes very refreshing to get a different perspective on the Church and where it is headed (even if the views are not drastically different from my own.) I related very much to Bass’ ideas on change (cultural, theological, etc.) as it relates to Christ and His message He brought to earth. Here are the two paragraphs that really stood out:

I have often heard people remark that churches do not like change, that they provide refuge from change, or that they resist change. Some Christians today fear cultural change, opting instead to make pronouncements about a God who is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" and insisting that they alone know the way to and the mind of God. Christianity, they say, is not about change. Christianity is old-time religion. They build churches to protect people from change, often in anonymous, suburban, gated spiritual communities, where they recreate a vision of some cherished Christian past. They venture out into the world to try and force the rest of us back to the perfect world of their fathers.

I cannot figure this out. In the New Testament, Jesus asks everyone to change. With the exception of children, Jesus insists that every person he meets do something and change. The whole message of the Christian scripture is based in the idea of metanoia, the change of heart that happens when we meet God face-to-face. Even a cursory knowledge of history reveals that Christianity is a religion about change. The Christian faith always changes–even when some of its adherents claim that it does not. As I learned on my own journey, the other Christians more comfortably navigate change and are doing so these days with surprising grace.

I am not saying that it is easy to deal with change in our fast-changing society. Of course it isn’t. But do we have to fear change in how the Church is expressed in its cultural setting. Should we be building churches as protection against culture or should we building them to flex with our ever-changing culture? I don’t have answers to these questions, but I have some ideas.

What are yours?

6 responses to “unbroken mold: does the faith change?”

erika

July 9, 2007 at 10:45 am

I think that change can certainly be a good thing, when it is needed – and especially when it is brought by God into your life, but that doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. and that I think is where the unchanging part of the church needs to be – in supporting and loving one another. that is our haven and our support system from the rest of the world – seeing christ’s love expressed through one another, being the physical outlet that we really need. hes calling us to change our ways and follow him – but that generally seems to be in asking us to turn from sin and to love eachother and follow after him. which is often counter cultural, and such change (atleast for me) needs a place of shelter to go to and recoup and be rejuvenated. But at the same time, we do bring in our own modern thinking and loves and desires to the church and I think that helps mold the church into a more present day and relevant entity – when we are embracing the loves and gifts that God has given us, and that that will keep us from just falling into tradition and trying to ignore culture or changes in it. I just do think that there are certain things that the church doesn’t change in once you have joined it. and that there are certain truths that maybe we are not always following – so we individually need to change – but not the church

thats my thoughts!
Anonymous

July 9, 2007 at 12:54 pm

All these things are true. Change is hard in any generation, but Gods word is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow. But our world changes. Churches sometimes get caught up in the numbers and because they have so many people in there church that they think they are the only ones who have the right way. It’s not what we should be about. Instead of building more numbers for our church we should be trying to build numbers for Heaven. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about,leading souls to Christ? His word never changes, we just think it should be more like what we think it should be. The things He stresses most was 1. love the Lord with all you heart and with all your soul.{sounds easy}
2. love your neighbors with as you would love yourself. Interesting concept if we could all be that way. Imagine what a revival that would be. If people could actually see us they way we should be, and not they way we are.
As we see in the old churches these have been issues ever since the beginning. I don’t think we really will ever know what the perfect church is, or maybe it is the one that accepts you the way you are, loves you totally. If you get off track in the word, helps you get back on track with out judgement. And sings songs from all generations,rock to old hymns not jusdgemental on all of the issues in life, but helps you learn to be a Christian in our society and live a christian life and try to be more like HIm. A church is not just a building for the perfect christian, but a place to come where you are accepted right where you are at. And takes you in and to be made welcome and one that is not affraid to say if we don’t have what you need here are some other churches that might and not be affraid to let them go, it just may not be the perfect fit. If you are seeking God you will find the right place. LIfe changes, but God doesn’t. What is right for one may not be right for another. As long as you are doing Gods will and reading His word and seeking to be more like Him everyday. That is where we are to be at and a different churches meet different needs, it’s up to us to not judge unless they are missleading you like the James Town situation. Or where the word is not studied or taken out of context to fit everyones point of view to where Gods word isn’t even Gods word, but mans. Sadly many have fallen that way. The parable where the sower sowed it seeds some when one way and died, some went the other way mixed inthorns and grew some and than died, than the others took firm root and grew and produced. It all boils down to are we being feed the truth in the word and are we living the way God wants us to and do we love everyone who comes in no matter what. That is what a church is to me and the rest of the stuff is just that stuff. I want heaven filled up to the brim, and the churches well………if there doing there job no matter the way it is set up and are producing new christians and meeting the needs of others than that is what a church is to be about. It is our job to grow enough to learn to listen to God and beable to discern and know what the truth is and go from there. When in doubt, always go to the word and seek his will. He always, always lead you to the truth when you are truely seeking His will in where you are to be. Life will always change it’s up to us to seek out where the truth is. And when the church no matter how it is packaged meets your needs and the people love you and support you and you feel loved and accepted than that is where you should be. A place you can be as comfortable as you are at home and yet chanllanging enough to help you grow and strech you to your limits of you faith. And where you are at peace. The rest is just packaging.MER
yeti

July 10, 2007 at 4:23 am

erika: thanks for your comments/thoughts. i think generally speaking i understand and agree with much of what you are saying. the church should be a place of love and unconditional acceptance because in a sense we are displaying christ (we are in fact his body in the world) to one another. i guess i question whether or not the church is really “a rest and support system from the rest of the world”. i’m not trying to be argumentative since i asked for your thoughts, but i think we have inherited a modern view of the church which says something like this: we are under attack and we must retreat to our safe, secluded corners, our gated spiritual communities (like bass talks about) where we must be the defenders of our fore-fathers’ “pure” expression of faith. in fact, i think when we make this dichotomy of us (in the church) against them (those outside of it) we misinterpret what jesus envisioned when he talked about the kingdom of heaven having come. for example, when i was growing up i heard a lot about bringing/attracting people into the church. i think instead we should be taking the church OUT INTO the world. (and i’m not really talking about street evangelism at all so don’t get me wrong.) i think if you look at jesus ministry there was not a clear distinction between his “church” life and his “secular life”. he and his disciples in one scene were healing people in the synagogue in the next scene they were at a party with drug dealers and prostitutes. he was out in the world. he was not in a constantly safe haven with his disciples (although he did find time alone with the father.) when i talk about church “changing” i am referring to its expression in the world, the way it handles and lives out scripture, the way the body exercises spiritual disciplines and the way it moves to actively ENGAGE culture and define itself from within that context.

jesus asks us to personally change, but he also asks us to change our society and our world on a more MACRO level. to do that we have to be relevant and engaged. i am not saying there will be no “dissonance” between christians and the world around them (there will!) but it has to be active dissonance (I think) not passive, protected, predominately retreating.

i know we’re probably expressing the same thing in a different way, but i thought i would add my two cents.

these are fun things to chew on…
yeti

July 10, 2007 at 4:57 am

mer: you covered a lot so i won’t try to comment on all of it! i’ll just hit some of the points that interest me most.

i think god is the “same yesterday, today, and forever” but i don’t know if his “word” is. at least i’m not sure if it is in how we relate to it. that might sound a bit heretical but let me explain. we know god can give us his perfect revelation and he gave us his “word” incarnated perfectly in christ, but the way in which we know about Christ and his revelation (word) is through Scripture primarily. the tricky thing about scripture is that we have to interpret it. it’s not interpreted for us. in many american churches that people almost boastfully pronounce “bible teaching” (as if all the others aren’t!) there is an assumption that we have arrived OR PERFECTED our interpretation of scripture. these churches think (and often we believers think) that we are basically RIGHT in our interpretation and that there are no gray areas anymore. in my opinion this is a very dangerous way to approach scripture and the church. you mentioned that people just need to have the right intentions and read the bible. in many cases, that’s true and will lead to much good in the world, but there are probably a few KKK members out there who think they have the right intentions and view of scripture. they will look at paul’s writings and show you that he was advocating for slavery in some of his epistles. it’s easy to say that they’re obviously wrong in their interpretation, but prior to the 1950s a good percentage of american protestant churches would have agreed with this interpretation.

i guess i’m saying this because i think we have to grapple with scripture and culture at the same time. we need to be the type of people who have an open mind and are willing to admit “yeah, maybe we don’t know everything about god or his word.” we can’t just say “scripture alone” because as culture/church changes our understanding grows and we are able to better contextualize what the kingdom of heaven looks like through god’s revelation. did god change in the 1950s? no, he didn’t, but our view of him changed as he gave us greater revelation of himself. this can only happen if the church is fluid and able to embrace new ideas in the light of scripture.

You also said, “Isn’t that what Christianity is all about, leading souls to Christ?” i’m not trying to be argumentative, but i would say that’s only just the (beautiful) start of what Christianity is all about. not only does god transform our soul when we meet him–taking us from death to life, but he brings us into his wonderful kingdom which is BOTH here and now and NOT YET FULFILLED. he calls us to be a part of transforming our society, he gives us a great sense of purpose, he redeems all the fallenness we see around us, and finds his home in his people in expression in his body. the only reason i mention this at all is because i came from a church background that was primarily concerned with “getting souls saved” for the afterlife, but which had little interest in bringing the entire earth into the Kingdom of Heaven in the here-and-now. i didn’t hear a lot about social justice issues, transforming our culture, making poverty obsolete, etc. souls are important to god, but his kingdom is also important and i think when the gospel is just about souls much has been lost of what jesus actually said to us.

i’ll say the same thing i said to erika. i think we are saying many of the same things in different ways, but i thought your comment deserved some thoughts and dialogue from me.

hopefully my post wasn’t too much of a rebuttal. i just think we are products of our time and generation. it comes out in how we think about the world. it’s not a bad thing, but it is a reality we must address within the church.
erika

July 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm

in that sense then, I would have to agree with much of your “rebuttal” 😉
the church shouldn’t be a haven to hide from the rest of the world, but even armies need a place to return to and recoup from a battle – I guess thats how Im thinking of it. and Jesus and his disciples were alone when he was teaching just them at various times throughout the gospels, they weren’t always out engaging, but did have their times to recuperate and hear jesus’s teaching – just them.
but I would completely agree with you on your point of needing consistency in our own lives and not having a “distinction between [our] “church” life and [our] “secular life”
that was something that earl talked about in his sermon this week at upc when looking at the life of paul – how as a disciple he was unchanging in who he was – he was consistent in following after christ, looking to him as what defines who he is, and trying to become like christ. no matter who he was with or in what situation. So in that sense I am diagreeing with the author you quoted. I think that when people are following after christ as disciples, they are changed from being like the rest of the world sure – but that christianity itself doesn’t change. christians are trying to become more and more like christ, and that that image is steady. maybe I just read it wrong, and they are talking about people changing from who they were and I read it as christianity being about change itself.
Boaz

July 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Brother, as I reflect on your comments I can not help but ponder how the Gray Havens fit into the equation. I am not trying to divert from your original game plan here, but my thoughts on spiritual matters often include some image I have gleaned from porting in Tolkien’s harbors.

We straddle two worlds here and I think there is such comfort and safety in the havens as they smell of home. But, as you so aptly put, they are not home. What then or rather now? If we are not home do we stay in the havens or do we go?

Sounds like Paul might have been on to something when he said: “to live is Christ, but to die is gain.” Of course, that opens up another chapter on the nature of our lives as they are lived.

We are privileged to be able to live this adventure between two worlds. I love you man and am thankful for the opportunity to have ported in the same harbor as you for the time I did and look forward to future visits at the same haven. Here’s to porting, living, chasing, trekking, overcoming, and setting sail to that distant home.

I love the majesty of setting sights on home when out of the port.