Whilst the Bible illustrates the church as the Bride of Christ, we must recognise the metaphor and not put too many ‘person’ characteristics on the church. The church is not a person, we are not hive!
I keep hearing about:
- The will of God for a local church.
- The specific mission of a local church.
- The purpose of a local church.
- etc.
Whilst I cannot knock these things absolutely, I do wonder if they illustrate our institutionalisation of the church. Hand in hand with institutionalisation come many characteristics that would normally only be applied to a person – the institute begins to have a character, a vision, a purpose, not enough time, not enough resources…
My concern is that we aren’t individualistic enough!!! OK – cringe in horror BUT:
- We have to ‘work out our own salvation’.
- Each of us has the Holy Spirit.
- We are each a priest.
- We each have to take our own responsibility to be obedient to God.
- etc.
If we institutionalise the church and treat it as an autonomous entity then:
- It is easy to ignore our personal responsibility.
- We end up putting expectations on the church – which actually means putting the individuals under pressure, and because ultimately we don’t treat the entity that is church with the same loving care and attention that we would give an individual – we are insensitive to the entity that is church and therefore insensitive to the people in it.
- We form structures to pass the ‘will of the church’ down through to the people who we expect to do the work. These structures enable distance to open up and can negate the need for intimate relationships.
- etc.
So, let’s assume that there is a need to de-anthropomorphise the church, to deconstruct it’s structs and to de-metaphor our over literalism!
Isn’t individualism a crime?!
Sure, individualism that is self seeking is – sure it is. But what about taking our individual responsibilities seriously, not putting too much pressure on others, not making the excuse that something is ‘their’ responsibility.
We see throughout the New Testament plenty of teaching. This teaching is aimed at the individual, it is talking about our responsibility as individuals, our relationship as individuals with a God who loves each of us, as individuals. New Testament teaching isn’t full of stuff about how to control others, it’s about how to control oneself… and submit to others.
The individualism that we see envisioned in the Bible is a personal love. A love that we gain as individuals from God’s action on our individual hearts. Out of that love we sacrifice ourselves, as individuals, on the cross of love. Love for others. We are united as church, not by control, but by love, love for God and love for others.
Let’s stop palming off our individual responsibilities on the church, let’s stop trying to control each other through the structure that church has become. Let’s look to the fundamental property of church, that it is a network of individuals, concerned for each other and having varying depths of relationship with each other, ranging from the intimate to an awareness of our brothers and sisters around the globe, whom we have never met.
I really have to disagree – there is only one high priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14); and the idea that salvation is a personal issue is just base protestantism at its worst. Christ was sent for the whole world, not the predestined or the saved. He continually calls us to salvation in community, in ekklessia which we now might interpret as “church” – not necessarily THE church, but in an ecclesial community. You can’t be a Christian on your own.
This is why anthrpomorphising the Bride of Christ is not so bad, because it unites us in community (as to use another methaphor, a body) in a mystical relationship with Christ. Marriage is not just an individualistic thing, but is an act of community.
I’m not sure if Mark is arguing against what you’re saying. I do think that a lot of Christians have a concept of the church as some kind of entity which should provide for their needs, forgetting that they are part of it. I often hear people (in the church) saying ‘the church should do this…’, but who are they referring to? Maybe the ‘leaders’, but almost always somebody other than themselves. I do think there is a difference between being individualistic and seeing yourself as part of the church, and therefore taking responsibility within that.
Hi Fr. S,
Aargh, yes, I think that I shouldn’t have put in ‘high’ and just put ‘priest’. What I meant from that is that we no longer have to go through a human intercessor, other than Christ, to commune with God. I’ve just gone back to edit my original post and get rid o the ‘high’. Thanks for the correction.
However, nowhere do I say that Christ wasn’t sent for the whole world. I’m not a Calvinist. However, this doesn’t make salvation a non-personal issue which I can duck out of. As we take our individual responsibility for choosing Christ (as non Calvinists must) then we become responsible for others.
Certainly he calls us to community, I don’t dispute that either and I think that you can see from my post that I emphasise our loving relationships.
Fortunately it IS possible to be a Christian but not have access to an ecclesial community. I don’t think that God’s grace is limited to just those who can find other Christians to fellowship with. However, ducking out of the church implies a distinct lack of unchristlikeness!
Marriage is certainly an act of community, however, a Bride (which is typically an indidual woman, unless you are a polygamist) is surely is a bad metaphor for a community? A Bride is a metaphor for an individual and, in this case, the individual community that is the worldwide church. There is no attempt to talk about community in the Bride of Christ metaphor. However, when we realise that the Bride is the church we place this information alongside our knowledge that the church is a community.
As you can see from my post, I’m deeply concerned that we over-anthropomorphise the church and by that means abuse our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, by not seeing them as individuals to have relationships with.
Some good points Mark. I do think you’re onto something correlating the anthrpomorphisation as a possible root of the institutionalisation of church. But there is also the insecurity issues and institutionalising stuff gives people some people some security, but wonder is this dehumanises church!
Yeah, we do love the security of institution!
It is arguable [and I do support this position] that the ‘angels of the churches’ in Revelation 1-3 are the churches themselves being addressed as spiritual entities answerable to God. Combine this with seeing principalities and powers as human institutions that have developed their own dynamics and identitites and add a dash of conceptualisation drawn from scientific theories about emergence and there is plenty of reason to think that we do right to conceive of ‘corporations’ as self- motivated entities with some degree of awareness and instrumentality.
That’s not to say that the issues around people taking proper responsibility for themselves are not of concern. The principalities dimension to understanding organisations [intsititutions] alerts us to the way that they have the potential to co-opt human beings into projects that are bigger and sometimes to the detriment of human and creation’s wellbeing. Paul’s language about not allowing the Powers to shape our thinking or to step into mediation between us and God is just on the button for concerns about the negative effects of institutions and corporate bodies, I think
Andii, great perspective. Interesting point about the churches in Revelation. An observation this brings up is that it is leaders who share a disproportionate responsibility for the people before God. So perhaps when we think of the church of an entity is reflects the unequal distribution of responsibility that God holds us to.
I think that what you say also sheds light on unwanted ‘Powers’ within the church. After all the church has ‘weeds‘ in it that can be acting against God. We should not expect to purge the church of all these things – that will be for Christ some time in the future!
Certainly we could go too far and say “we must not view the church as an entity”!
glad to see that you’re not trying to remove thinking about the church [among other things] corporately. Actually I thought you were more about making sure that the balance wasn’t lost. You might want to check whether I’ve summarised your post fairly in my own blog’s hat-tip to this post:
http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2005/10/church-and-individuals.html
I am wondering if what you are wrestling with here is a discipling issue.
In the gospels the ‘way’ of the new disciple is individualistic in that it is depicted as a costly turning and separation from old famil[y]iar relationships & habits of being. Yet fundamentally discipleship is also about incorporating the disciple into authentic participation in a dynamic faith community centered on Jesus (eg: Lk14:26ff). Within this context a new communal identity is forged as individual disciples are re-orientated ‘in Christ’ through living, working & being together. This makes a significant shift from ‘In Christ’ I am to ‘I am because we are in Christ’. Mature discipleship ‘in Christ’ then is expressed as authentic identity located within authentic community.
As Johua Massey highlights – christologically speaking – the work of discipling is fundamentally incarnational. With incarnation you are adjusted to the inner core of your being as you authentically participate with other disciples in a faith community that is in Christ. As disciples walk together ‘in the Spirit’ in a very real sense Jesus becomes flesh in you. For me what makes my experience as a disciple deeply personal is because it authentically communal. That’s structure in the service of the Kingdom. Outwards & downwards !
I know it can be a bit dodgy to mix metaphors but the power of metaphors is their potential to evoke new possibilities in a way that defies habitual thinking & accepted meaning. For me, in a sense metaphors are the perfect antidote to the baggage of the institution because of their ability to create zones of anti-structure around themselves.
The Bride of Christ reminds me of a similar metaphor Ezekiel 16:4-14. In this passage Israel is depicted as an abandoned baby girl flailing about in her own blood, with umbilical left uncut. It is an image of weakness & absolute vulnerability. Yet the image builds to one of extravagant love as God is depicted taking care of the baby through to womanhood then taking her as His bride & lavishing her with gifts.
David Bosch initially brought my attention to this image, when he used it to describe the missional heart of God. I want to belong to a company of disciples in whose presence it is safe to be weak & vulnerable – who are a significant missional presence in the world because they have been touched personally by the extravagant love of God.
Hi AW. Thanks for your discussion around the topic. Great stuff.
It is interesting to see how God brings his plan into being through individuals acting as community, discipling each other, being accountable to each other, being responsible to each other.
Let me ramble a bit:
http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=176
You’re advocating individualism over the corporate responsibility of the body of Christ. I’m slack-jawed.
You’re making the argument of someone pissed off with their church, and wanting to disassociate themselves from something it’s currently engaging in, something they’re not comfortable with. But please, don’t tear apart a central tennant of Christianity to excuse that.
Of course the body is made up of individuals, but the very point is the dissolution of that individualism. The irony of your argument is that rather than excusing yourself from the behaviour of the many, you’re absolving yourself of the resposibility of doing something about it.
Hi John,
I’m sorry that you have so misinterpreted my post. I urge you to recognise the balance I have tried to put in the post. You seem to simply be picking up on half of what I’m saying.
What I’m trying to emphasise is that, whilst the church does have a corporate responsibility, that responsibility is NOT lived out by pushing demands upon others in the church but rather by taking on your inidividual responsibility as a member of that body to do your bit. The church isn’t about pressure and manipulation of each other but rather is about participation and person to person love.
Why is there a difference between “taking on individual responsibility” and “pushing demands on others” to do the same? Why does everyone else get expectations taken from them? If one is to expect certain things of oneself in a corporate body, then one must surely expect the very same of everyone else in that body. Any other response is either hypocrisy or phenomenally patronising.
There is a difference between the good things of accountability and the bad thing of demands and manipulation. That is merely what I’m trying to highlight. I do firmly believe in accountability. I don’t think that we should remove all expectations from others.
I don’t think it is patronising to expect different levels of commitment, maturity and practice from different people in the church. We are all at different stages in our walk and love and tolerance are key to fellowship. To him whom much is given, much is expected – the corollary of that is that less will be expected of some.
I recognise the truth that one should expect different levels from others (but always with the expectation of their intent to offer the most they can).
You advocate the responsibility of the individual over that of the corporate body here:
“We have to ‘work out our own salvation’.”
“We each have to take our own responsibility to be obedient to God.”
“This teaching is aimed at the individual, it is talking about our responsibility as individuals”
And then suggest that anything other than accepting these individualist dogmas is “control” – it’s one of two extremes.
If that’s not what you mean, it remains what you argued. Your point stands that we must all take responsibility for our part in the body, and your point stands that we must not see the body as a means of controlling others. But your argument suggests that one is a natural consequence of failing the other, which is utterly untrue, and at least without evidence. And that is why I respond.
John, you said “And then suggest that anything other than accepting these individualist dogmas is “controlâ€? – it’s one of two extremes.” Did I really? I don’t think so. I’m saying that we easily step out into ‘control’ when we over anthropomorphise the church.
Please reread my original post.