Think locally …
From an old Biblical Horizons newsletter by James Jordan on rediscovering the concept of parishes and the local church:
The Biblical conception of the Church is geographical, not ideological. In America today, we drive past twenty churches to get to the one we “agree” with. This situation cannot be reformed overnight, but we need to start thinking the way the New Testament does. We need to recover the parish concept of the Church.
Biblical government in the Old Testament is intensely local: elders over tens, then fifties and hundreds, and then thousands. The “elders of the gate,” who tried capital cases, ruled over populations of only a few thousand, about the size of a large subdivision in our of our cities — about the size of a political precinct. The New Testament view of the Church is the same: the Church in a place, taking dominion over a parish, over a precinct.
The local Church must see herself as the True Governor of the neighborhood or precinct in which she meets on the Lord’s Day. Whether the people up the street worship at that Church or not, they are still part of the parish of that Church in one sense. We must reacquire a dominion-consciousness about our parishes. Neighborhood people must be prayed for, invited to Church bazaars and festivals, and the like.
Unfortunately, Christians today are all concerned about national and international affairs, or state and city affairs, all of which are “too big for us” (Ps. 131). We say that we want local government and that we are against big government, but when we act and pray, we give the lie to this.
Thus, we are sending a signal to our slaves (rulers) that we think Babelically instead of locally, and that is how we are badly ruling our world today.
Jordan is too excitable here, expressing what I think is most likely a faulty dilemma. And yet there is much food for thought.
This is an issue on which I’ve thought quite a bit over the past couple years. What if everyone who attends a Sunday service just went to the church nearest to them? It would be this massive re-sorting with Orthodox grandmothers sitting next to teenage baptists next to a white bread Anglican middle manager sitting next to a charismatic… you get the picture. It would be entertaining to say the least if everyone in a city tried it one Sunday.
I’m not sure this will fly… no way will I ever go to a church I can’t stand, just because it’s close. Ideas about community and “the local” could not be more different than they were 2000 years ago. Hamilton is local. China is local.
The paradigm of “then” doesn’t overlay neatly onto the paradigm of “now.” There weren’t 20 churches you could drive past. The next church might be DAYS away. On foot.
We also have, in the early church, division over theology; some believers following this shepherd, some that. It seems that selecting a body that fits with your own understanding of the Holy Spirit’s expression of itself in your life is as “early church” and as any other conception of worship.
It’s a quaint idea… like selling all your possessions and donating to a communal pot.
I DO like Dan’s idea though… there needs to be more communication between “branches.” Especially movements that are so separated by time and theology.
I think there is a thing to be said for the importance of physical proximity. I am currently attending a church that’s far far away and I’m finding it pretty unmotivating to cultivate missional neighbourly relationships as realistically, there’s no way that they would come to my church with me. Of course, I could do that in the area my church is, but that won’t happen. It’s too far away.
Also, I’m realizing that as life gets busier and more complex it helps to have structures set up in life to ensure success and not failure. If I have two kids and it takes me 30-40 min to drive to church, I’m going to be less likely to attend frequently.
With that being said, I think this all boils down to a cost-benefit analysis of the two alternatives. For some, proximity will be key whereas for others, things like worship preference will be key.
It won’t be as much of a struggle if the church is truly edifying, but sure, it’s a concern. And yes, it’s hard to participate in what the church is doing within a community if YOU are not in that community… but what’s the cut off? I’m sure it’s different for everyone… 5 mins away? 30? 60?
Also consider, you commute to work without a second thought, because you need/want money. Your home is here, your job is there… so you commute. If you’re unable/unwilling to do that so that you can plug into “the right” church community, what does that say about your priorities? Idealistic maybe, but that’s the simple truth; you will endure any inconvenience if the end result holds real value.
Also, what if the only churches nearby are a Catholic church, a United, and some near-cult Airport off shoot? If geography is your main candidate, you’ll end up going nowhere. And even if you do, will you really participate? You talk about structures that negate failure. How much will you succede if you’ve resolved to go to a church that is close, but dead or lame or disagreeable? You’ll show up… but you’ll only show up.
How do you feel about moving to be closer to a church that you feel resonance with? Instead of having your church revolve around your geography, have your geography revolve around your church?
Ben, I guess the corollary to your question is how far would you go? One hour? Two hours? Four hours? Finding the perfect church community can be a very Quixotic sort of quest and one that can ultimately lead us to disappointment and despair for all churches – as nice or as welcoming or as exciting or as righteous as they may appear on the outside – are composed of human beings and therefore not exempt from human frailties. The church that looks like it clicks and may be ideal for us will sooner or later be found to have some nasty aspect in it: gossip, deceit, laziness, what-have-you.
C.S. Lewis points out that church-hopping can also turn us into church critics bouncing from here to there and so on rating churches on architecture, music, children’s programs, preaching, community and so on. I know that this is not what you are proposing we do, but if don’t guard ourselves that’s where we end up.
Many people, when saying that they are searching for the “right” church often have a coded demographic meaning. Young urban professionals want to go to church with other young urban professionals, there are “Asian” churches, and “Black” churches and so on. Do these demographic slices not serve to draw the very distinctions that Paul obliterates in Galatians 3:28? We must examine ourselves very carefully to make sure that these sorts of surface distinctions are not what cause us to think a church “clicks” with us.
Dan, good point. We live in a time and place where commitment and loyalty are dead. “Going the distance,” with anything – marriages, jobs, even finishing a book – is fantasy. So, while I agree that one can easily become a church shopper, I don’t think that negates the importance of finding something that works with you, especially (and more importantly) where “truth” is concerned. I would not be able to plug into a community that believed you HAVE to speak in tongues for your salvation to be valid, preference for music or preaching style aside.
But again, I’d submit, looking for and finding a church that works for you, then moving and orienting your life to revolve around that community is worth considering, especially if the goal is to spend the next 20-50 years there.