The framing story simplistically went something like this: I have sinned. I am separated from God. Only through faith in Jesus (and a host of other things) can I be reconciled to God. After said reconciliation, I strive to live faithfully, keeping myself from being corrupted by the world. The world is on a path headed for destruction. I, if I can keep myself from being polluted, am on a path headed for redemption. Along the way, I should not only live righteously, but share this path with others so that they can do the same.
This framing story is one of personal salvation, person spirituality, and personal success (phrase from McLaren’s A New kind of Christianity) It set me on a “personal” trajectory that deemed the crises of the world unsolvable and thus mostly irrelevant especially given its’ unavoidable demise. In this framing story, I had little to say about global crises beyond the sentiment that if “individuals” would come to know God then the actions of individuals could be changed and thus impact the amount of evil being perpetrated in its’ various capacities. The idea was to work toward bringing individuals one by one to a personal salvation, a person spirituality, and a personal success resulting in a growing number of individuals who together make up the church. The problem is this “personal” approach has a hard time maturing into a “community/globally” inclusive faith.
What I am saying is that as we approach people with this framing story of personal salvation, person spirituality, personal success we are indeed setting them on a selfish course. This calling is indeed “personal”. It is personally asking you to live outside yourself. Maybe instead of starting “personally” we should include God’s desire to not only “heal” us as individuals but as nations, cities, and communities.
When Jesus prayed “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew
My simple point in this post is that instead of starting with this personal salvation, person spirituality, personal success framing story, what if we started with one that went more like this:
You are not called to buy a plot of land in the gated community of Forgiveness and Redemption. You are not called to pool your home owner’s association fees together with your neighbors in an effort to keep your property values up while the world outside your gates deteriorates as expected. You are not called to have your weekend parties and send the left over scraps outside the gates with that guy who says he has some “calling” to take them out “there”. Instead of gates that protect you, you are called to build roads that give access. Instead of advertising to others how great it would be if they “moved in”, your borders should expand to include them where they are. Instead of landscaping your own yard so others can model it, you landscape theirs only to return home to find your land sculpted by the master craftsman. Instead of enticing others with the amenities of our community that could be theirs if they confess the secret password and commit to following the homeowner’s association handbook, we ask them to let our Builder look at their house because He loves to remodel. When they say they can’t afford it we tell them it’s free, but the only catch is he asks you to become a remodel-er yourself in return. When they say they don’t have the time to do that, you say “I didn’t either. I started small with what I had to offer and then I couldn’t stop.”
So what if the framing story was less of a personal self-help guide, but more so good news about a global initiative from an idealist that actually had the heart and ability to see it through?
3 comments:
Interesting thoughts here.
I agree that we have shaped things to have a 'personal' bite to them in the Church. My least favorite is 'personal savior'. Really? The circumstances around Jesus sacrificing himself for us should be our rallying cry.
However, I do think that there does need to be some level of 'personal' discussion as we shape our stories. Simply put, our faith is our personal resposibility. In now way should that limit us to avoid relationship with others, but it should definitely be included in a much larger worldview.
In short, maybe we should expand our framing story instead of switching it out entirely.
Thanks for the comment dj. I’m definitely not advocating an either/or option –either it’s personal only or it’s global/community only. “Expanding” instead of “switching” may indeed be the answer, but that is in a sense what I am basically arguing here. As we start with this personal trajectory, the “expanding” becomes difficult for so many. What I am trying to advocate is a both/and approach. “Our faith is our responsibility” but to me the core of that faith is personal and missional. Instead of the core being personal and the outer layer being missional (if we get there), the core is both. They can’t be separated. They are like two sides to the same coin.
With that comes the question of how one hears the word “missional”. In this post, my stance is that “missional” isn’t getting others into a personal salvation/spirituality/success alone but that the mission is personally calling/leading/loving others into a relationship that is at its’ core misisonal. I guess I was saying that we often call people to a personal relationship planning to turn them toward a missional one at the right point of maturation. I think the two can’t be separated or categorized.
We do the same thing with trying to identify the “spiritual” message of Jesus and the “social” message. In this category is praying, meditation, Bible study. In this one is feeding the poor, advocating, and aiding the oppressed. I don’t think we can separate the two. They intrinsically go together.
Sorry if that was too long. Thanks again for taking the time to comment my friend...
To add a thought to what has been posted... I think part of what is being discussed is, in part, cause and effect, rather than either/ or. The church through much of its more recent history has had a mentality of "once your personal life, personal salvation, personal etc. is righteous, then you are ready and able to participate in missions and such. Only after your personal "whatever" is ready, may you then look outward." Concerning the liberation theology that Mike alludes to, it is too often perceived as having nothing to do with personal development. Although this is understandable, it need not be the case. When a community has a common goal, that community intrinsically grows together as they reach for that goal. When a person serves, they intrinsically grow more in accordance to their ideals that encouraged the service. If a person attempts to orient their life so that they are righteous enough to benefit others, there will always be guilt and internal conflict with lessons the possibility of growth, and inevitably lessons the chance that the person will actually step outside of themselves. If christians were to lesson their priority on their own personal "whatever" and actually were to compassionately enter into that which is outside of their "gated communities" then the personal growth will occur. How can a man be godly if they forsake humanity? Forsaking others for one's own personal sake is contradictory to all which Christ said and acted. He time after time forsook his own personal "prayer" time to embrace people. He prayed, yes of course, but his priorities were others first always. Why should we try to better his system by saying he had it backwards, "one must be in a right place before they go..." It appears Christ's example was not so concerned with prioritizing the personal, but compassion for the "other."
sorry for the length
Post a Comment