One Thing Missing

Yesterday's post on the church brings up a good question: how do we critique the church? It certainly needs correction at times.

This is made even harder because many of us have been hurt by the church. The criticism understandably comes with a lot of emotion at times.

Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, has a good post on God-centered anger vs. self-centered anger. "Our world needs more God-centered anger," he writes. So do our churches.

I find this story of his challenging:

I remember being at a conference years ago when, during the panel discussion between the various speakers, one of the speakers (an editor of a conservative political-theological magazine) was expressing his frustration with many of the political “left-wingers” in an unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending way. When he was finished, John Piper (one of the other speakers sitting on the panel) spoke up and said to the man with the utmost seriousness and precision, “For a long time I have appreciated your ministry. You are an astute observer of our culture. I read your magazine every month. It’s always insightful. But there’s one thing missing from your ministry.” The other speaker looked at Dr. Piper and asked what it was. Piper looked at the man dead in the eyes and in front of 5,000 people said, “Tears!”

That's the type of anger and critique that the church really needs.

Comments

[Ken Davis]

All this debate about whether it is right to support the church that is so full of problems or whether it is right to criticize the church when it is God's people just makes one very sad. Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for it. And whether we are frustrated with it for its multiple faults or rejoicing in the fact that here are people on their way to becoming something glorious for God's glory - we must love the church. If it is not that loveable, well, we are just loving what Jesus loves. He hunted me down and won me over when I was His enemy and hated Him.Before we debate about the rightness or wrongness of criticizing or defending the church, let's make sure we love it. If we do not we are not even a part of it.

[Art]

I still say that we need to define what we mean when we refer to "the church." There is a distinction to be made between "the church" and "The Church."I have no idea what the population of Ephesus was when Paul was there, but when the Bible refers to "the Church in Ephesus" in Revelation, is it speaking to "The First Church of Paul", or "The Church of St. Paul The Divine", or "the Second Church of The Assumption"?My point is: I am sure there was a population large enough to support many local "churches," but Revelation refers to THE Church in Ephesus, -- the body of believers as a whole, regardless of which denomination/sect/ministry each member belonged to. So, if the Scripture were being written today, and it referred to "the Church in Toronto," it would be the entire Church, not only Richview, or The People's Church, or The First Baptist Church, or Calvary Assemblies, or whatever,... although it may very well include members from all these churches and many more besides.When Darryl says, "many of us have been hurt by the church," I agree wholeheartedly because I am one of those people who was so hurt, and chose to distance myself from the source of that pain. I have come to the conclusion though, that in doing so I distanced myself from the church and yet did not distance myself from The Church,... if you get my drift. I believe now that I was hurt by the church,... a particular, individual, denominational entity within the larger Church,... the body of believers in Christ as a whole. Strictly speaking, I was hurt more by a particular individual WITHIN that church more than by the other members of that congregation. That it was the Pastor who was "to blame," meant that I lumped everyone else into the same basket and distanced myself from all of them as well. Mea Culpa.All the atrocities that have been laid at the feet of The Church throughout history, in reality have been the fault of a particular group within The Church. That is to say that the blame should lie with the members of the church who were responsible for the atrocity, NOT the entire body of believers who comprise "The Church." Previous posts have mentioned what happened in Ireland, or the harmful actions done to the indigenous peoples of various countries in the name of "The Church." The Crusades, the sexual exploitation of children, and various other sins committed by some members of the church, (who were admittedly over-zealous,) are not the responsibility of The Church. Much has been done in the name of religion that is harmful and indeed, sinful. Religion kills; Relationship heals.Thus, while I agree with Darryl asking "how do we critique the church? It certainly needs correction at times," I wonder to whom he is referring? Or, is he also unwittingly lumping the two entities into one basket? I am certainly less sympathetic to his disparaging remarks regarding people who choose "the occasional cup of coffee with other believers" as opposed to attending an organized meeting of a local, denominational congregation. "Where two or three are gathered in my name...." I think it depends on the focus of the meeting. I can organize a meeting of two or three believers over a cup of coffee and experience as much, if not more, of the presence of God than I have found in many organized gatherings on a Sunday Morning.While there have of course been exceptions, I have seldom been disappointed when I meet with members of The Church. Other Christians have always been a source of inspiration, of love, of comfort, of learning and of healing. Other Christians have taught me the meaning of forgiveness, charity, wisdom, meekness, patience. Yes, these Christians have had issues. Yes, the relationships have been messy. Yes, I have been hurt by some of them, and I am sure I am guilty of hurting some of them as well. But I would choose a cup of coffee with almost any of them over an empty experience in a building in the name of legalistic attendance of a local "church."Ken says, "Before we debate about the rightness or wrongness of criticizing or defending the church, let’s make sure we love it. If we do not we are not even a part of it." I agree, but I have to make the distinction: I love The Church,... those individuals who comprise the family of God, adopted by Him into the family because of their acceptance of His Son's sacrifice on their behalf. I am not even close to loving the church,... those edifices erected in the name of denominationalism, personal fiefdoms and legalistic religion.