There’s a scene that occurs in a few TV shows and movies
that strikes me as particularly foreign to us, although we do not often
recognize it. It occurs whenever characters from one relatively isolated group
(say, a family, or a school) interact with characters with whom they would not
otherwise interact with if it were not the occasion or situation.
One great example for this is the various town interactions
that occur in Stars Hollow in Gilmore
Girls. One expects Lorelai to interact with the people at work – Michel and
Sookie – and one expects Rory to interact with her peers at school – Paris, for
example – and one expects them both as regulars at Luke’s to befriend Luke
himself. But who is the figure of Kirk? Or Taylor Doose? Where do they fit in?
Obviously they are figures that aid in our understanding of
Stars Hollow itself, a place that exists somewhat independent of Lorelai’s inn
and Rory’s school, and, surprisingly enough, a place that exists with its own
economy and its own spirit. It is a place that represents a community that
truly does exist in all of its quirkiness. The increasing presence of Kirk as
the series goes on is an expression of the increasing importance of Stars
Hollow as a character for the season (Stars Hollow, of course, personified in
the character of Kirk).
But at a realistic glance, one might ask a following
question: When do all these people find time to be a community? And why? The TV
has cast a spell on us: we recognize that a town existing as a community is a
beautiful thing, a quirky thing, and a valuable thing. There’s this quote from
G.K. Chesterton in which he observes that the family is a romance because we
have no control who our family is; but for Gilmore
Girls, Stars Hollow is a romance because these characters have literally no
reason to relate or connect with one another at all, not even family relations.
Kirk has no relational or identity reason for connecting and engaging with the
Gilmores time and again, he doesn’t even have an occupational reason for doing
so, since he works a different job nearly every episode. He is neither
coworker, nor peer, nor friend (at first at least), nor diner-owner, nor
romantic interest, nor circumstantial encounter, even. He just is and he is for
no “purpose.”
I’ve been thinking about the problem of community a lot
lately. The word is a difficult word to bring up in discourses, probably
because it holds with it, in recent parlance, some measure of “left-ness.” In
the politicization of the world, “community” is categorized to the left while
“individual” is categorized to the right, a false dichotomy that ought to be
deconstructed if I’ve ever seen one.
The problem is particularly tricky for the Church. The
Church also ought to be a romance, following Chesterton’s terminology. Here we
have people who come from every walk of life and in every stage of life who
come together to worship the God who has met them all in some, miraculous,
incredible manner. These people are called “the Body.” They are not called, if
we use the similar language that Paul provides us in Romans and in I
Corinthians, “the diverse Body Parts” or “the Members,” although we might refer
to an individual at times a “member” of “this or that church.” But the word
that the Scriptures use is that this Church is a Body, thus it is a Community.
But we have a hard time being a Community. Individualism
dictates that we each must come and each must play our own part, and that if we
do so then that is a community: sovereign individuals playing their part on the
assembly-line Church. But an assembly-line cannot make a Community any more
than it can make a Church, and often in churches that are more
individual-focused (think: megachurches that are so big that worship is a
wholly private affair because one can get lost in the mass of people) we find
that parishioners often have no personal connection with the Church’s mission,
or its purpose, or its goals, or even with other people. I have known churches
where members come in, they dance for the service, they worship in the privacy
of their own seats, and then they leave shortly before any can catch them. It
is as those worship is a private matter only. I wonder what coming to church
means for these folks; couldn’t they have the same experience from the privacy
of their own couch? (And don’t televangelists serve this same demographic?)
Yet stories like Gilmore Girls draw our attention and our hearts, and if we pay attention we might see that they are drawing our hearts for a reason. There is something incredible about being a part of a living Community.
Yet stories like Gilmore Girls draw our attention and our hearts, and if we pay attention we might see that they are drawing our hearts for a reason. There is something incredible about being a part of a living Community.
While we have lived in Hyde Park, we have languished – on
one hand – because Hyde Park itself is a very dysfunctional “community.” It is
not geographically segregated, but it is culturally self-segregated: there are
community members and there are university members, there are Christians and
there are seculars, and we interact with one another, at most, when we are in
the act of purchasing. Our social relationships have become material ones.
But – on the other hand – my wife and I have joyed in our
church community. Church of the Shepherd is a small church, a small community,
and it has all of the joys and struggles that a small church formed mostly of
graduate students has: a revolving door of comings and goings, little sets of
resources to accomplish our mission, and the constant dynamism of ever-changing
worship. Yet still, somehow, we have found a way to be a community. We are
inter-connected with one another’s lives. We celebrated a friend’s birthday
party last weekend, we mourned in Ash Wednesday this morning, we will eat after
service sometime again soon, I am sure.
I do not know how to explain the feeling that I am
attempting to explain, nor the spiritual wealth of being in the midst of a
community that “gets” community. How can I? I do not have the appropriate language
– individualism has robbed me of the ability to communicate it. But here are a
few sketches:
+ Our worship is a worship of the Church, not a worship of
private individuals. We do worship together; not pretending to be together
but worshiping alone. It is a delight. One of the ways we accomplish this is by
serving each other in the service – one reads the Scriptures, others lead the
songs, others lead the prayers, others take the offering. Liturgos literally means “work of the people”; our liturgy is a
work of our community.
+ Our Bible Study is a study of the Church, not a study of
private individuals. The pastors prepare together and prepare in the
context of commentaries and various evangelical theologians (I get to join them
sometimes); and we wrestle with questions rather than lay down solid facts.
This gets us into the Word more deeply, and we leave with both the refreshment
of the Scriptures in our studies, but also with the refreshment of having
wrestled through the Scriptures as a community.
+ Our sermons are of
the Church, not of private
individuals. The pastors work as a team in preparing sermon series, and
members of our church serve one another by preaching from time to time too. We
make it a practice to represent various theologians and voices in the messages
so that we are embedded not just within our own theological tradition, but also
within the “great cloud of witnesses” that has gone before us.
+ We also eat together. A lot.
These sketches serve as introductory thoughts in what it
looks like for a Church to become a Community. It is hard to nail down,
however, precisely what will and will not work for a given Church; they’re all
very different. The crucial thing, however, is that we recognize Sunday worship
not as a space for us to have our individual experience with the Lord, but for
us to participate in worship as a Body together
in His presence. Individual prayer and worship is a thing for daily devotionals
or morning Bible studies; Sunday is a time for us to come together as a Community. That distinction seems
like a crucial one that is worth making.
Beyond this, too, I am also thinking about what general
community – the Community of the town, etc. – ought to look like in a culture
as individualized as ours. That will need to be another blog post, once I have
thought it through more. For now, however, I will observe that being a
Community as a Church is also evangelistic: the world outside is dying for
relationship and dying for community, and we have the ability to be that
Community for them. Let us be the Body: that in itself is a prophetic
declaration.
No comments:
Post a Comment