Whom do my beliefs affect? If I’m currently doing something, can I honestly read scripture and make an unbiased decision about the morality of my actions? Or do I have an inherent conflict of interest?
For example, Jesus criticized the man in his parable who tore down his barns to build bigger ones. If I move from an apartment to a house, or buy a nicer car, you could say I did the same thing. One you’ve done something, you tend to rationalize it, particularly if you benefit from it and enjoy it.
On the other hand, what if I’m not affected by a particular issue, yet I have an informed opinion on its morality? Let’s say I believe it’s wrong to own a yacht. It’s easy for me to judge those who have enough money to purchase yachts and choose to do so. But do I understand the motivations of the buyer, and the full consequences of the purchase? Probably not.
I’ve never been in the yacht-shopper’s shoes, and probably never will be, so my judgment of yacht-buying as wrong is both irrelevant to my own life and free from the questions that would arise if I were actually able to buy a yacht.
I say this to point out that we can’t depend entirely on ourselves to judge our own actions, and we can’t just judge others and expect our judgment to be fair. We need to make these determinations in community.
These thoughts are similar to thoughts that I have been having lately. Why do I own a car when I could walk or take a bus (not to mention that oil is the major reason we are fighting a war in the middle east)? Why should I own a TV when I could read a newspaper or a book (largely more important, in my opinion)? Why am I going to settle down and start a family when the two most important people (arguably) in Christianity (Paul and Jesus) never had families.
Justin -
I think the point you bring up displays how all interpretation is subjective. We cannot divorce our experience from what we read in Scripture. There are degrees to bias on particular issues and experiences which may make us prone to believe things which are clearly misguided, but even the perceptions we have which our more accurate are subjective by the very nature that we have an object (the Scriptures) and we are subjects (and thus our interpretation is subjective).
[...] Justin Baeder makes this observation and shows how difficult it is to balance our own wants and desires with understanding the Bible in his post, Armchair Theology vs. Compromised Theology. [...]
These are hard questions. I am currently struggling with this issue since I have three siblings who each have more than 500k mortgages. My wife and I are the odd ones out because (even though we could manage it) we rent a small place. It’s difficult not to judge them as being owned by their mortgages (though this is what is happening). I think you’re right Justin about community. The communities my siblings are part of encourage home ownership, family worship, career advancement and material acquisition. Sadly these messages are coming mostly from their ‘church’ communities.
A group of people that develop with a purpose and that commit to honesty and openness can lovingly address these questions. Church communities do not have these sorts of conversations. We hear how to be good stewards of our possessions and how to honor God in our relationships and at work, but we don’t ask the hard questions like is home ownership the equivalent of serving two masters.
I’m tempted to look for such a community, but experience reminds me (and seems to be human nature) these too can become polluted by power (fallen leaders), & the expectation of standard ideas (even noble ideas) then you’re in a worse situation when it comes to community.
Perhaps the emphasis on community is off balance unless it’s held within the tension of each member having a dynamic realtionship with Christ. I’m finding this to be the crux of the matter these days in Christian circles.
Community isn’t hard to engage in, the hard work happens in solitude. What you bring to community is only worth while if it comes from that solitude. The mind of Christ, the compassion of Christ, the love of Christ . . . is what we need more of individually and collectively. We cannot get that from each other, it’s something we get from Christ that spills over onto each other and the world.
It’s interesting to hear a different perspective. I feel that the personal relationship is a subset of the community acting out the Kingdom. Our individual experience with Christ flows from our corporate reality in Christ. This is not my preference since I think I have a rewarding relationship on my own and living in community only ’slows me down’. However, I have been convicted in the past three years that the personal is shown throughout the story revealed in the Bible as secondary to the communal. Our primary purpose is as a community witnessing to the present and future reality of God’s Kingdom. This purpose is lived out in a collective witness (though there are individual actions comprising it).
The worry over pollution in the community is valid. That’s why our notions of how organized groups operate must be reexamined. We’ve let these ideas become norms and they aren’t usually helpful. Leadership is one such idea. Real community guards against abuses and pollution. Just because negative things are possibilities doesn’t mean this kind of community isn’t the right endeavor, it just means we have to seek a more Christlike communal life.
Tim, I’m hearing you, just wondering if it needs to be one or the other? The inner life or the communal life? My thought is that the inner life connected to Christ strengthens the communal life. The inner life shouldn’t be a subsitute for community. It enriches it. Without it, it’s easy to hide among an enthusiastic crowd or mimick the good works of Christians without having a real connection to the source of life for us all–Christ. Then, during a hard time, we have no inner strength to draw from to sustain us or real wisdom to lean on.
Being a part of a community that you speak of is plan ‘A’ but there are many who are living in far less and still are solid Christians. Jesus emphasizes both in the Gospel of John. He teaches his disciples they are branches-interconnected (the community) and he admonishes Peter “what is that to you? you must follow me” (inner life). If I, as a single part of the whole am not drawing life from the vine, I will wither or/and be cut off. The church certainly displays the manifold wisdom of God (Eph.)and we make up the church. So, not sure if our thinking is absolutely opposite or just coming to a complicated subject from different places, but just thinking outloud. Thanks and Blessings.
Shelli, I think you’re right. A slightly different perspective but not totally dissimilar.
However, I am keenly aware of the emphasis in western civilization (especially since the enlightenment) on the individual. This perspective can cause us to see the story in individualistic terms (the exchange w/ Jesus and Peter) where in reality it may not exist. We as enculturated westerners have a lot of relearning to do in understanding the Biblical narrative.
I think it is a false distinction between individual (personal/inner) and communal (corporate/outer). I say this because the picture of the Kingdom we see is not one of individualistic realities but rather as a unified whole (a Holy Nation). Kingdom life is not entered into as individuals (that’s a modern idea) rather we enter into the Kingdom by participating in the life of the body as it witnesses to God’s redemptive work in the world.
The question of whether individuals can carry out the purpose we’re called to as the church is hard to answer. I’m inclined to avoid a conclusion on whether a servant of the king can truly be considered to be fully involved in the king’s realm if that servant pursues a predominantly individual agenda. (Short, undeveloped analogy-sorry).
From my recent experience, I can have a self-fulfilling spiritualistic life on my own, do some good in the world around me and be okay with God. However, I am uneasy because this seems too much of a westernized, idealistic existence. The Biblical narrative seems to suggest a different life in christ. One characterized by an alternative culture lived out in community as a witness to what is coming (the Kingdom) and what has already happened (redemption).
Hi Tim, It’s really valuable to hear you say these things. If you can bear with me it may help me to have a clearer understanding of what you’re saying. I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. This could be a perfect example of cultural ideas colliding.
I’m all for redemption and the kingdom. In redemption we are “translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of the beloved Son.”
What proceeded the enlightenment? What philosphy or idea had to be corrected by such an extreme emphasis on the individual? It seems wise to be aware of not only the enlightenment but other philosphies which have brought us to where we are–learning from them, but not necessarily overeacting to them.
A few questions come to mind. Unless you are from another culture altogether, how can you truly respond to the Gospel from anything else other than a “Western” view?(and why would you want to?) Aren’t there are going to be deficiencies with any cultural lense? Why would another be better?
When you say we have a lot of relearning to do in understanding the Biblical narrative (in terms of individualism) I’m not sure I understand what you mean. If the context of the narrative is speaking to the individual how does that “not exist”? Can you help me understand what discipline this idea coming from? Is this related to hermenuetics?
There’s a pedominance of discussion about the kingdom and community, but isn’t this clearly the result of an inbalance of theology (”an emphasis on the individual”)? A void which is screaming to be filled? Unfortunately, the emphasis on the individual (however that has been relfected by our theology) has not helped us be more devoted disciples. At the same time one group is calling for more authentic community, another is calling for an emphasis on a return to Spiritual Disciplines (which pre-dated the enlightenment, as did the New Testament community of faith). I wonder if this is what this tremendous outcry emphasising community over the individual is about. The sickening realization that with our current set of values, we are rotting from the inside out and must make the shift.
Hey, thanks for continuing the conversation.
Shelli, great thoughts. Several things. First I think it would be wise to define the concept of community because maybe we have different definitions. I think community is anytime two or more people commit to life together in Christ and submit to God as their source of life and purpose. So my marriage is the closest example I have of what that commitment can be. We would love to say there are other people in our lives we could be in community with but this has been a slow and frustrating process. So right off, I don’t advocate some sort of group with an ideal number (20 people) or an ideal mode of operation.
Cultural ideas colliding is indeed the issue. The Enlightenment gave rise (or new life) to a number of philosophies. Much of the result was positive, specifically a greater value put on the individual human. The lives of women and non-whites and slaves and children, etc. have been positively impacted because of this. The value of scientific inquiry is another positive result. However, a major philosophical current flowing from the Enlightenment is a more aggressive secular humanism. It is the coupling of this humanism and a quasi-religious individualism (self-determination) that has become incompatible with being a Christ-follower.
There’s a lot more to say about that but maybe we’ll do that later. I think the great question you raise has to do with what other ideas came before this.
I don’t claim that I have somehow transcended my own cultural biases and faulty lens. Rather I am trying to became as aware of them as I can. We’ll always have blind spots (another reason for having people around you to point that out-like you!) but I think we can attempt to better understand the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day. This is what I mean by having a lot to learn.
N.T. Wright among others is doing some good work in shedding light on the Jewish cultural environment. This has been helpful to me as I have tried to understand my own culture and the way that has shaped my outlook on God, the Kingdom, community, etc.
It seems as if you have been convicted about the general lack of Kingdom values that infests all of us. That very much rings true to me because I am always sensing God moving in this area. So maybe we are getting hung up on a ‘which is most important’ sort of question.
I would venture this: much of what our culture demands of us creates obstacles to Kingdom living. The inner life is not mutually exclusive of communal life and vice versa. We are told to be consumers and yet we see a different story in the Biblical narrative. We are told to protect our rights at all costs and yet servanthood demands something else. I see the rotting you speak of as a real epidemic. Can we overcome the world’s values through purely individualistic pursuits? I don’t know but my leaning is to answer, no. Can we overcome the world’s values through life in community without any inner disciplines? I don’t know, but again I think, no.
Wow, this is a really long comment, sorry.
I’m not advocating a radical community that subjugates the individual spiritual pursuit. Rather I sense in my own life that I am better able to ‘practice’ being in the Kingdom when I am doing so with other people. I’d hope that a group of people with ‘everything in common’ would include a commonly-held value of inner spiritual practices. So, I agree with what you’re saying. We’ve got to die to ourselves (individually) so that we can follow Christ into the ultimate existence in the Kingdom (corporate).
Hope to converse more!
Wow. I have great reservations that the ultimate experience in Christ is corporate. Consider that Jesus is called the Word of God and the Bible is his work. He is in the Bible from start to end. If we follow that thought we also find in the scriptures that if we draw close to God he will draw close to us. This is the source of past church leaders who implored Christians to follow his word and judge all things by it. This is far superior to a corporate experience with believers bouncing to and fro between subjective human judgements.
It is likely that if you follow the corporate experience pattern you will present conflicting and contradicting value judgements from small groups all claiming homage to a non traditional non institutional movement. This may be why some think the corporate experience pattern is really about what individuals feel emotionally rather than a rational understanding of approval from a infinite God who sees thoughts and intents before they form.
Consider the statement that the church Christ established was extended to all races and classes and teaches the same ideas, concepts and value judgements from establishment to the end of time. It is not part of the plan to unify every choice and issue of life with a discipleship program. Because we are followers of Christ doesnt change family and work situations. Corporate discipleship wont work because we are individuals and live under our own unique circumstances. Teach Christians from the Bible and they will have the right choices in their individual lives made clear and can make chocies on their own free will.