Worship Matters, The Collective Identity of the Church, Part 2

In my last post, The Collective Identity of the Church, Part 1, I introduced to you the idea that the members of the Christian Church must understand ourselves not as individuals, but each as part of the collective reality of the Church. I emphasized that we must surrender our need for individual identity and validation and adopt instead the collective identity of the church. 

Today I want to connect the claims I made in that post with Biblical evidence of the Church's identity as the particular and set-apart people of God, making connections between the New Testament Church and the Old Testament people of Israel and exploring the imagery of the Church as a Body. I want to help you see the collective nature of our identity, and the importance of living into that collective identity.

1 Peter 2:4-10—The Church and OT Israel

In his first epistle, the Apostle Peter provides a solid foundation for the Church’s understanding of its identity as a collective entity. The recipients of the letter were believers who had been scattered throughout the region of Asia Minor and subjected to various trials and tribulations, and were questioning the Gospel and their inclusion in the Church. Peter wrote in order to establish and affirm these believers' self-understanding as the people of God, with this being the dominant theme of 1 Peter 2:4-10. The believers needed to remember who they were. The imagery used in this text, particularly in verses nine and ten, points back to the collective identity of the Jewish people as the chosen nation of Israel and ties the identity of the Church to the identity of Israel in significant ways.

Peter writes in 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” The connection to Exodus 19:5-6 is obvious, even with only a quick glance at the Old Testament text: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” Any in Peter’s audience who were Jewish in their spiritual and national heritage would have heard those descriptors—chosen people, royal priesthood, holy nation, and special possession—and would have immediately made the association with the Mosaic covenant, with God’s setting apart of the Israelite nation for a particular and holy purpose. Peter’s use of this imagery asserts that “the Christian Church has now inherited the peculiar character and privileges of Israel.”(1)  Namely, they would have understood that the Church as a collective whole was the holy, set-apart people of God. 

Paul's teaching in Galatians chapters three and four reinforces Peter's claim that the Church is the continuation of the people of Israel. In these chapters, Paul describes the Law (i.e., the Mosaic Law) as the “guardian” over the children of Israel, given to provide instruction and training until the time was right for Israel to receive the inheritance as fully adopted sons (and daughters). This adoption was accomplished through the redemption of Christ, and Paul addresses the believers in Galatia as those who have received the inheritance.

In this text, Paul uses imagery of childhood and immaturity. Galatians 4:3 says, “…when we were underage…” or “when we were children,” communicating the idea of an underage person who can’t make decisions for himself or herself because they lack the maturity and the authority to do so. This “minor”—i.e., Israel—was still in need of the supervision and care of the guardian. However, by the redemptive work of Christ, this underage heir was brought into fullness of maturity and with that maturity came the full inheritance of sonship.  This “heir” is now known as the Church.  The essential identity of the people has not changed; it has only grown into its mature realization through the power of Christ.

The Body of Christ

The next piece that needs to be connected is the imagery Paul uses multiple times to depict the New Testament Church, which is that of a body. It is common among Christians to refer to the Church universal as "the body of Christ," and it is not unusual even for an individual congregation to refer to itself as the "local body." It is an image that we are so accustomed to using, though, that I fear we've become blind to what it actually represents.

Paul briefly utilizes the image of a body in reference to the church in his letters to the Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, but it is in his first letter to the Corinthians that he provides the most detailed application. First Corinthians 12:12-14 reads, “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.” The image continues through the end of chapter twelve, discussing the role and value of the distinct aspects of the body, but also reminding the readers that even with those distinctions, the body functions as a whole. 

As a body, the Church as a whole is meant to function as if it is itself an individual, not as a collection of individuals. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this the “collective person,”(2)  and describes how this type of community has an identity distinct from the identities of the individuals who form it. The identity of the “collective person” of the Church is two-fold: First, it was and has always been the reality revealed by God.  God created the Church as a communal (a.k.a. collective) reality from the beginning. Second, the Church is specifically identified as the “Body of Christ.” This insinuates much more than membership in a group of people for whom faith in Christ is a common denominator. Bonhoeffer takes the image a step further, claiming that the identity of the “collective person” of the Church is that of Christ himself. “Bonhoeffer asserted that from the sinful individuals who comprise this assembly God forges a new creation that constitutes the collective person, Jesus Christ…Christ existing in the form of church-community.”(3) The identity of the Church, as a “collective person,” is Christ himself revealed in the here and now. 

Paul uses this collective image of the body to represent the Church in order to move believers’ understanding of their own identity away from one of individual autonomy and toward the reality that they are now part of this wonderful and singular identity. Each individual has value and place within the collective body, but that value is intricately connected to their inclusion in the body. Individual identity is secondary to corporate identity.  Paul exhorts believers to recognize that every element of the body is necessary and desired so that no one part is excluded or cut off by another. Wrapped in this message is an exhortation for today’s Church to understand themselves in light of the whole body and to stop acting in ways that inadvertently amputate themselves from it. 

Why It Matters

Maybe you're wondering why this conversation even matters. Why is it so important that Christ followers understand themselves in light of the entire Body rather than as one of the individuals who comprises that body? What's the big deal?

The significance of this conversation lies in the fact that an improper understanding of identity shifts our understanding of the Gospel itself, moving it drastically off-center. An individualistic view of self narrows our view of God's salvation, puts constraints and limitations on His goodness and mercy, and replaces Jesus with "self" as the main character in God's story. 

These repercussions of individualism should be sobering enough on their own, but they produce additional consequences that are just as grievous. When God's people view themselves only as individuals and neglect the collective nature of our identity, we become our own roadblock to fulfilling the purpose and calling of the Church. We become entangled in ourselves and our own affairs, and fail to live out the Good News of Christ in and for the world. We cannot "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God" if we are primarily focused on ourselves and the way Christ benefits us.

What we believe—about ourselves, about God, and about the Church—matters. 

In my next post, I will explore these implications of individualism more thoroughly and share with you why I am so passionate about shifting our perspective toward a collective mindset.

Until next time, grace and peace to you and yours.

________________________

1. E.G. Selwyn. The First Epistle of St Peter, (New York: Macmillan & Co, 1955), 278.

2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 103-105. 

3. Craig L. Nessan, “What If the Church Really is the Body of Christ?,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 51, no. 1 (2012): 45.

Worship Matters: The Collective Identity of the Church, Part 1

I know this is my “Philosophy and Faith” blog, but today I want to write just from a “faith” perspective. I want to share something that has been on my heart and mind for quite some time now and that has become a driving force in my faith life as well as my academic life.

A little over a week ago, I received a letter of acceptance into a PhD program at Fuller Theological Seminary. This fall, I plan to begin pursuing a PhD in Theological Studies, focusing on Christian Ethics. Of course, this fits perfectly within the realm of the courses that I currently teach, with Ethics being its own branch of philosophy and one of the more popular classes that I teach each semester. More importantly, this stream of study will allow me to pursue research concerning areas of justice and social justice that have become near and dear to me over the last several years. Specifically, I plan to explore the gap between God’s calling for His people to care for the widows, orphans, foreigners, and the poor and how the Church acts (or fails to act) in those areas on behalf of Christ in today’s American society.

I believe that the Church’s fulfillment of her calling as the Body of Christ begins with a proper understanding of her identity, God’s goodness, and the Gospel of Jesus, and that the living out of her calling begins with worship that flows out of that proper understanding. And the more time I spend worshiping with various evangelical congregations in my area of the country, the more I am convinced that we are missing the mark.

There are many pieces to this conversation, more than I can make space for in one blog post, so bear with me as I build my argument and my theology over the course of several posts.

The first piece: A Collective Identity.

Because the American church is full of American people who were raised to value American ideals, we are really good individualists. We value privacy and independence. We’re a “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” kind of people who don’t need to depend on anyone for anything. Asking for help is not just humbling, it is humiliating and considered only as a last resort. We’re also proud of our achievements and believe credit should be given where credit is due. We want our voices to be heard, and we fight for our worth as individuals.

Yes, we are quite proficient individualists.

Unfortunately, as members of the Church, we were not called to be individualists, but rather we were called to lose our individualism for the sake of the Body of Christ.

Please don’t tune me out.

I am not saying that we are meant to become faceless conformists who lose all sense of individual value and worth. I am saying that we are meant to understand our worth and our identity as part of the collective Body of Christ. The Apostle Paul uses the image of the human body to represent the Church multiple times in his letters, but his description in 1 Corinthians 12 is the most descriptive. In this chapter, he discusses the role and value of the distinct aspects of the body, but also reminds his readers that even with those distinctions, the body functions as a whole.

               Paul uses this collective image of the body to represent the Church in order to move believers’ understanding of their own identity away from one of individual autonomy and toward the reality that they are now part of this wonderful and singular identity. Each individual has value and place within the collective body, but that value is intricately connected to their inclusion in the body. Individual identity is secondary to corporate identity.  Paul exhorts believers to recognize that every element of the body is necessary and desired so that no one part is excluded or cut off by another. Wrapped in this message is an exhortation for today’s Church to understand themselves in light of the whole body and to stop acting in ways that inadvertently amputate themselves from it.

               It is so challenging for us to adopt a collective mindset because the individualist mindset is ingrained in us from birth, it is woven into the fabric of our culture. It feels wrong to relinquish individualism and all that it entails. Who among us has not desired personal validation, a sense of self-worth, and acknowledgement of personal achievement? Who among us has not felt the need to be loved simply for who we are and found comfort in the thought that God provides that personal, relational love? It seems extremely counterintuitive to claim this as false and to abandon wholly any sense of individual place within Christ and the Church. Must the individual identity be cast aside in every sense in order to correctly and completely adopt a collective self-understanding?

               We ask this question because we simply don’t know how to think outside an individualist framework. We don’t know how to operate in any other way. But if we could break free from the confines of individualism, we would find that the value of the individual is found in belonging to the whole. Paul used the imagery of the human body, allow me to use the image of a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle is only complete when every piece is present, which means each piece is vital. Each piece may have beauty and interest of its own, but it is of little value until it is added to the entire puzzle. Value, then, is found when each piece of the puzzle comes together to form the complete picture contained in the puzzle. This is the collective nature of the Church.

               But why does it matter whether we view ourselves as individuals or as a collective? Does our self-understanding really have that much influence on how we live out our calling as the Church?

               Yes, unequivocally. Our self-understanding has a tremendous influence on how we understand God, the Gospel of Christ, and how we fit into God’s story. And the way we understand those three things determines how we worship, and how we worship directs how we respond to the calling and mission of God.

 

               How we see ourselves matters. How we worship matters.

              

               There is still so much more to talk about concerning the Church’s identity as the particular and set-apart people of God. Next time I’ll dive into 1 Peter and do a comparison between the Church and the people of Israel. From there, I’ll move forward into what it looks like to worship as the collective people of God.

 

Until then, grace and peace to you.

 

Human Dignity and the Image of God

The Enlightenment was a really interesting time in human history. That period produced some fantastic thinkers that shaped history and politics, and whose thinking still have influence today: John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Paine, even Benjamin Franklin. One such thinker that we spend a fair amount of time talking about in my classes is Immanuel Kant.

Kant is probably most well known for his ethical theory which centered around the concept of universal moral principles, otherwise known as the Categorical Imperative. Kant was a firm believer in concrete moral facts and taught that each human had a duty to live according to those moral facts. His was a rigid theory that placed no value in the outcome of one’s actions but located moral value fully in the intention that preceded an act. For the black-and-white, “check the box” type thinker, his was a theory that was actually pretty convenient, as the “dos” and “do-nots” were fairly obvious.

Unfortunately, Kant’s theory left no wiggle-room for situations where doing the “right” thing might cause more harm than not doing it, or for situations where the black and white blurred into a fuzzy shade of gray. Moral facts are moral facts, whether you like them or not, and regardless of the outcome that results in following them.

That’s a pretty tough moral stance to get behind.

But before we throw out the entire theory, there’s one more piece that is worth noting. The second part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative says to treat human beings always as an end and never merely as a means. In other words, remember that people are people, not tools.

Remember that people are meant to be regarded with dignity and respect.

Remember that people are not meant to be used only for your own benefit, but should always been seen for their own worth and value as humans.

In the church we say it this way: remember that every person has been created in the image of God.

Every person.

No matter what color, what nationality, socioeconomic status, gender, orientation, age, size, political affiliation…

Every. Person.

Friends, our world needs to be reminded of this principle. Our culture has forgotten what it means to look at another human and see a person. We look at one another and see disagreement. We see difference. We see opportunity. We see something worth despising. Or manipulating for our own benefit. Or maybe just something that is in the way, an inconvenience.

We have forgotten to see faces. We have forgotten that inside every chest, a heart beats. Inside every skull, a mind turns. Inside every person’s veins, the same red blood runs through. We all love, we all want to be loved. We all celebrate, and we all grieve. We all hope, and we all worry. We are all human.

I encourage my students to remember that behind every frustrating interaction with another human is a real person who is trying to live life just like we are. I encourage them to respond in difficult situations with kindness, treating others with dignity and respect even in their worst moments.

As a Christ-follower, I work daily to remind myself that every human I see, every person I interact with was formed in the image of our Creator, that they—like David—were formed with wonder and care in their mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13-14). It’s so easy to forget and to treat people like they’re worth less simply because they make me uncomfortable, or because I disagree with them, or because something else makes me think they don’t deserve to be treated with dignity. Shame on me.

If I want to always be treated with dignity and respect, I must also treat others always with dignity and respect. So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you… (Matt. 7:12). In philosophy this is called the “reciprocity principle.” Kant called it a universal maxim, which, ironically, brings us back to the first formulation of his Categorical Imperative.

Kant was not a Christian. In fact, he worked purposefully to develop a moral theory that didn’t rely on religion as its basis. (He was, after all, a good Enlightenment thinker.) His parents were Christian, though, and like it or not, the principles of his parents’ faith made it into his moral thinking. There is certainly much to value in Kant’s perspective, especially when his principles are laid back on the foundation of the real Truth founded in scripture.

We must always treat people as an end and never merely as a means, for every person was created in the image of God. For that reason alone, they deserve our respect and our kindness.

Shalom.