This is a phrase I've heard quite often in the past five years, and I'd like to take a moment to challenge it, because so much is at stake.
The phrase, "belonging before believing," suggests that unbelievers should feel included in the Body of Christ so as to cause them to be more open to believing. One writer in my own denomination has even suggested that every church board should have an unbeliever on the board. Now, I'm certainly not one to suggest that we should not be extra-nice to unbelievers who come to our worship services, but I would suggest that they should understand that it actually means something to be a Christian, and that passing from death to life is not a line that is easily blurred.
Now, I don't think I'm a pure contrarian (I'm actually rather committed to non-traditionalism), but I do think it is always fair to question the questioners. I'm afraid there is an attitude out there that some can question everything Christianity has ever held sacred, but they themselves cannot be questioned. Is that arrogance or just immaturity? For some, being positive means questioning everything except those who are questioning everything.
Anyhow, here are some of my questions regarding "belonging before believing":
1. Where is the biblical support for such an idea? Is the Church not the communion/community of the saints? Did I miss a memo cancelling out New Testament ecclesiology?
2. What is the compelling reason for overturning 2000 years of ecclesiology? For example, did Jonathan Edwards get canned for no good reason? Were the catechetical schools of the Early Church for nothing?
3. How is this different than liberal Protestant churches who wish to include all regardless of their faith or lifestyle? How effective a strategy has that been for them?
4. If you can't draw the line at ministry, or membership, or 'lay' leadership, where do you draw the line? Ordination? And why?
5. If Willowcreek has now discovered that their "seeker sensitive" strategy has caused a lack of maturation of the saints, how does this strategy not "seeker sensitive" on steroids, and thus doomed to fail even faster?
6. Why do you see corporate gatherings as the primary means of evangelism, when in the New Testament and Early Churches, it was interpersonal and outside the corporate gatherings?
7. If communion is banned from those who fail to "recognize the Body of Christ," how does an unbeliever meet the requirement of 1 Corinthians 11?
8. What are the major success stories of this strategy that you would share, particularly in non-urban settings (in major urban settings you can get a group of people together who worship shoelaces).
Just wondering. My questions are 100% sincere. Can anyone help me here?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think there are few issues with the premises behind your questions. I think that the very terms “belong” and “believe” treat the church as if it were some sort of club with a mission statement to which members adhere. This is a modern construct that would seem to go against the DNA of the New Testament church. It seems quite clear from Scripture, that in order to “belong” to the church (or perhaps more accurately, become part of the body of Christ) that as soon as one believed and was baptized, he was considered a member. A formal membership system would have been seen as quite unnecessary, because one would just naturally become part of the organic entity known as the church.
The other thing I would question is how “belonging” and “believing” are actually measured. It doesn’t seem that Evangelicalism has done a good job of either for people who are actually church members. I would say a sign of a person belonging is that person considering himself a minister of the Gospel regardless of having a title or position. It seems that 5-10% of the people in churches still do the entire “ministry”. As far as “believing”, it seems that most church members really don’t believe what they they say they do, at least according to their lifestyles. Surveys by the Barna group and others indicate that church membership makes no practical difference in the way people live their lives. So if actions aren’t influenced by a belief, then I question the value of a belief.
Personally, I have come to care less and less about who’s officially in and out. All I am responsible for is being obedient to Christ, and displaying to those I encounter, whether they are Christians or not. Hopefully, people will see Christ in me, and evangelism will become part of my life, and they too will want to enter into the abundant life that Christ offers.
I'm not sure I have ever considered the phrase "belonging before believing" to be a comment on or attack against ecclesiology . I think it is more a comment on apologetics...and the process of conversion...
Belonging before believing simply means that someone wants to know how much you care before they will care how much you know. Belonging before believing simply means that the God-placed need for community is a greater draw to Christ than the (enlightenment-placed?) need for information.
I think belonging before believing might even be the way Christ operated... didn't the disciples belong to his team, even before they believed?
I think belonging before believing is a good corrective to a sometimes head-heavy evangelicalism, but how you apply it is a whole other matter. We don't allow people to "belong" to the membership of our church without believing in Christ, but we will allow them to belong to a lifegroup, or a ministry team etc.
Those are my thoughts...
dan
Thanks for your thoughts, Dan. Great to have you drop in.
I think belonging before believing might even be the way Christ operated... didn't the disciples belong to his team, even before they believed?
I think this is a very important biblical point, Dan. I have often wondered exactly when the disciples could have been considered believers.
One could say it was impossible for them to be such before the Cross, and yet, Jesus gives them authority to go out and do miracles in Luke 9-10. Then, one deals with issue of whether Judas was ever a "believer." He was a disciple, but John 13:18 implies he was not of the "elect."
Anyhow, I do think the ecclesiology of this is as relevant as the apologetic method, and I hope there is more public wrestling with this issue.
Post a Comment