BlakeHuggins.com

Introduction: It Should Change, But to What?

The image of the community of God is perhaps the most simple and basic metaphor we could use when characterizing God’s alternative reality. Or so it seems.

We like to talk about community a lot in “the church.” We seem to understand that cultivating some sort of a community is at least something we should be doing. But our so-called communities look more like fragmented, arbitrary, collections of isolated individuals than genuine, authentic communities of persons sincerely concerned for the well-being not only of each other, but of the forgotten, the down-trodden, and the marginalized.

And that’s the thrust of our problem. We’ve gladly adopted the language. We use the right terminology. We know the buzzwords. But we refuse to let go of our deep-seated preoccupation with rugged individualism. And by doing so we’ve allowed “the church” to become just another carrier through which our self-interests can be stroked. God forbid we be challenged to become more than mere individuals who live more for others than for self.

We need community. Deep down I think we crave it. If anything, we need it for support and encouragement as we face tragedy. But it’s so much more than just that. We learn in community. We learn from one another. We cultivate virtues and nurture character. Stanley Hauerwas’s metaphor is that of the community of character–a group of persons committed to participating in God’s redemptive action in history. And as I’ve said before we need the community to help us keep our heads screwed on straight, to keep us accountable. I know I do at least.

But again, “I” rules these days and “we” as been swept under the rug. Hyper-emphasis on personal conversion, private religion, and a personal relationship with God/Jesus/whatever have all but negated the much needed emphasis on community.

I believe if we read the gospels–and by read I mean the gospels themselves, liberated from the rose-colored glasses of Paul and Augustine–and pay close attention to Jesus and his ethos we might discover a different type of approach: an approach that is very much community-oriented and relationship-centered. Jesus took community very seriously. He created a community with his disciples, a constant community with which he shared his experience, his dreams, his hopes, his aspirations, his friendship. Furthermore, Jesus was very much concerned with human relationships, a vital component of any community. And when faced with a choice, Jesus always chose human-beings, relationships, and community. Those were the most important. Not dogma. Not self. Not organized religion. Not tradition. Not legalism. People. Relationships. Friendship. Community.

This idea stuck. Well, for a short while at least (I’d say up unto the time of Constantine and the inception of the institutional church, but that’s beside that point here). In Acts we see this motley group of persons that followed Jesus and learn from him creating intentional communities centered around relationships and others. They shared everything with one another because “we” was more important than “I.” People were more important than self. Somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten this story. We’ve traded this beautiful narrative for one of selfishness, greed, and pride; and as a result what goes on within the confines of the church is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of our culture. We merely blend in with the chaos.

As we seek to reject this story, opting for God’s ongoing, participatory and synergetic story of restoration, re-creation, and redemption we must first reject the domination and glorification of self so we may be liberated, enabled, and empowered for collaboration and cooperation with one another. Because God only knows none of us can do it on our own.

~bh ><>