The MosaicXn Church in Everett Washington

      I love to read the writings of the great German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  The following is a quote from A Testament to Freedom (285):

    ”Don’t believe that you know on your own how to get along with people, or how to deal with enemies, or what good and evil are, lest humankind devour itself completely.  ‘Never be conceited’–rather look to God’s way with us, with our enemies… the way which Scripture itself calls foolish, the way of God’s love for our enemies, which God demonstrates to us by sending God’s Son all the way to the cross.  The best wisdom is recognizing the cross of Jesus Christ as the insuperable love of God for all people, for us as well as for our enemies.  Or are we of the opinion that God loves us more than God loves our enemies: Would we believe that we are God’s favorite children?  Were we to think that, we would show ourselves to be of like mind with the Pharisees; we would have stopped being Christians.  Is God’s love any less for our enemies, for whom God just as much came, suffered, and died, as God did for us?  The cross is nobody’s private property, but belongs to all; it is intended for all humanity.”

Well said, Mr. Bonhoeffer!

–Matt

O God, for your love for us, warm and brooding, which has brought us to birth and opened our eyes to the wonder and beauty of creation, we give you thanks.

For your love for us, wild and freeing, which has awakened us to the energy of creation – to the sap that flows, the blood that pulses, the heart that sings – we give you thanks.

For your love for us, compassionate and patient, which has carried us through our pain, wept beside us in our sin, and waited with us in our confusion, we give you thanks.

For your love for us, strong and challenging, which has called us to risk for you, asked for the best in us, and shown us how to serve, we give you thanks.

O God, we come to celebrate that your Holy Spirit is present deep within us and at the heart of all life. Forgive us when we forget your gift of love made known to us in Jesus. And draw us into your presence.

–(from the Iona Worship Book)

“I hate organized religion. If you ask me, the Church is neither a building nor an organization. It’s simply a group of people seeking the divine.”

Have you ever heard someone say this? Something like this? Have you ever said this yourself? A few thoughts:

      If you ask a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church or even a high-church Anglican, “What is the Church?” their answer will no doubt include a description of liturgy, Sacrament, Scripture, Holy
Orders (Bishop, Priest, Deacon), and an overall, visible connection to the Church of the Apostles. Of course, they would include far more than this, but it’s safe to assume these would be a part of the
painted picture. If you’re reading this and you’re Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican, so far so good. If, however, you’re reading this and you are NOT Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican, you may be thinking, “What does it matter how they would define ‘Church’, I’m not one of them.” In fact, it matters greatly what they think because they make up the vast majority of the Christian Church—nearly 70% of the 2.1 billion Christians living on this planet. In other words, it’s an extremely small voice that disagrees with this definition.

      But what about that small voice—the one of many Protestants–the voice who says that regardless of the 70%, the definition of ‘Church’ has gotten way off track in the past 2000 years? I am one of those voices (at least I have been in the past, and I’m relatively positive that the 70% of Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans would place me in the catagory of the 30%). A lot of the controversy centers on the Greek word for ‘Church’—ecclesia. Isn’t it true, as some would argue, that this word has nothing to do with organized religion? Isn’t it true that this word has nothing to do with church hierarchy (i.e., church leaders)? Isn’t it true that this word has nothing to do with institutional Sacraments (e.g., properly
administered baptism, communion, etc…)? After all, so the arguement goes, doesn’t the word ecclesia simply mean the saints “gathered together?” And doesn’t the word for Apostle (apostolos) simply mean “sent ones,” or “ones who are sent out?” If that’s the case, then the ‘Church’ is simply the saints
gathered together, sent out into the world for the sake of Christ, and not some organized, institutional body, right? I don’t agree.

      Mosaic, the local church I am a part of, has recently been going through the book of Acts. Last week, we discussed the story of Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5. The story ends with this husband
and wife duo both dying at the feet of the Apostle Peter, and then reads, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events” (5:12). What is noteworthy is that this is the very
first time the word ecclesia is ever used to describe the Church in scripture. Why’s that important? Because some mistakenly believe that the original Church, the original ecclesia, was just some saints loosely “gathered together,” and that only later did this pure religion get polluted with ‘organization’. But this is far from the truth. Here, in Acts 5, where the word ecclesia is used for the very first time to describe the church, we must ask ourselves, “What exactly was this word describing?” Surprisingly, a group that was already organized; a group that already had a distinct hierarchy; a group that already
devoted themselves to the Apostle’s teaching (and no, not everyone who was “sent out” was considered an Apostle. That title was specific by this time); a group that already partook of at least some of the Sacraments (e.g., the breaking of bread, baptism); a group that already met together on the first day of the week (Sundays); a group that already had structure and organization. This group was even giving financially to the organized Church. What’s more, these early Christians
(known as Followers of the Way) weren’t simply giving to individuals as they felt “led” by the Spirit. Rather, as people had need, it was the ‘Church’ (organized, structured, under established leadership) that gave to those who had need. How’d the Church do this? Because the Christians gave to the Church more than enough for the Church to then divvy out the money as the leaders saw fit. The fact is, Luke uses the word ecclesia to describe THIS group—not some make-believe, fanciful, post-Modern, neo-hippie group which flees from organized religion and hides out in small, secluded clusters of sub-culture. I know. I know. It pissed me off to discover this also.

      Why do I write this? Because the ‘Church’ succeeds in her mission only when Christians play an active role in the ecclesia. For 70% of Christians, that’s no problem at all. But for the other 30%, there’s a real problem. There’s a lot of talk out there concerning the definition of ‘Church’ by people who know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to take the next step and be helpful. Many, due to unintelligent data, are fleeing the ‘Church’ and hiding out in small little clusters all in the name of being the true ecclesia. Ironically, these groups are actually destroying the biblical notion of ecclesia. Sad…no,
tragic. The local church is the hope for the world. She is the only tool Jesus chose to leave the world; he chose no other; God help us if we fail; God help us all.

–Matt
>

No one of our brethren, even should he desire it, can separate himself from us, and in the meanest miser, in the heart of the prostitute or the most squalid drunkard there is an immortal soul with holy aspirations which, deprived of daylight, worship in the night. I hear them speaking when we speak and weeping when I fall upon my knees. I accept them all! I take and understand them all; there is not one of them I do not need, not one that I can do without! There are many stars in the heavens and their numbering is beyond all my power of calculation, and yet there is not one that I do not need in my praise of God. There are many living beings, yet we see scarcely any give forth their light, while the rest are whirled around in the dark chaos which contains them; there are many souls, but there is not one of them with whom I am not in communion in that sacred apex where it utters its “Our Father.”

~Conversations dans le Loir-et-Cher(1935), p. 119.

If anyone reading this wonders what Christianity is all about–what it isreallyall about–it is the belief and hope that, within the Body of our Lord and Savior, humanity–that is,allhumanity–is being drawn into universal fellowship, grace and love. It is a faith that says,within Christ’s Body exists authentic personhood. It is a faith that believes none of us can be truely ourselves apart from the rest and that mystical union with God and with others is found in the Body of Jesus Himself. The Body of Jesus, that is His Church, is the hope of the World.

–Matt Lybarger

(DISCLAIMER: All you academic philosophers will have to forgive my outrageous over-simplicity. Please remember that I am not writing to, or for, academics,per se… although I do consider my readers to be perhaps the most intelligent generation to ever walk the face of this planet.)

      One of my favorite philosophers to read is a dead Danish dude named Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is a great read for Christians and non-Christians alike. He was a Christian guy whose studies not only made him a well-educated philosopher but also prepared him to be a pastor in the state-run Lutheran Church of Denmark. Since he became acutely opposed to the notion of a “state-run” church, he never ended up becoming an ordained minister; rather he chose to live his life as a philosopher and prolific writer. In secular philosophical circles he has come to be known as “The Father of Existentialism”—a title that is impressive but not necessarily accurate in my opinion. You may be thinking, “That’s great Matt. Now we know a couple small facts about an old, dead dude. What’s your point already?” While I could go on forever on Kierkegaard’s brilliance, his thoughts on the human “self” and on relationships are absolutely wonderful. Check it out:

      Kierkegaard taught that all human beings share an intrinsic, life-long task, namely, that of becoming an authentic human ”self.” Simply stated (over-simplified, to be sure), a “self” is a person who is in a constant state of “relating” This is extremely intriguing to me and it may intrigue you as well. I’ll explain.

      According to our philosopher friend (and I believe this to be true from a spiritual perspective), human beings are extremely complex individuals. People are not mere animals, but are also spiritual beings. Humans are a composite, if you will. We are both finite and infinite, temporal and eternal beings.  If Kiekegaard is right, and it’s true that people are this freaking complex, I am forced to ask the questions, how in the world are we supposed to relate to each other? I mean, no wonder men can’t figure out women. I’m so complex I can’t even figure myself out!

      Kierkegaard argues that the complexity of each human person is so great that there is no natural way for us to properly relate to each other. Instead, he argues that all human relationships must be grounded in something outside the natural realm, something infinitely greater than our confusing and complicated selves, something eternal. So, being a philosopherand a Christian, Kierkegaard claims that this eternal “something” must be God. Only the eternal God can establish and sustain a relationship between two complex, finite entities.

      So, here’s why I love this guy. Think about the implications of his argument:

      1) According to this view, the only way for me to truly be myself (that is, a human “self”) is for me to acknowledge that I was not created to be a hermit, keeping to myself, hiding away from others. No, I was created and tasked to be a communal, social creature. I must be actively relating to those around me or else I am not really an authentic human “self.” And I can only be in proper relation to those around me when I allow God to be the one who establishes all my relationships. This doesnot mean that I can only have authentic relationships with Christians (or other theists), but that I acknowledge all my relationships are gifts from God whether or not the other person accepts this fact. Therefore, I have a responsibility to God for the way I treat those with whom I have a relationship since He is actually a silent-but-active “3rd party” in every relationship.  Imagine what it would be like if all Christians thought this way.  We’d all realize God is involved with each and every human encounter.  Perhaps we’d all treat each other with greater love and respect, regardless of who the other person is or what that person believes.

      2) But it gets better. According to Kierkegaard, because I am such a complex entity, I need to learn how to relate to myself. I need to get to know myself, explore all my intricate parts, learn how to get all of my split personalities to relate to each other, learn how to unify the complexity that is Matt Lybarger. According to Kierkegaard, this too requires that we allow God to be the one who establishes and sustains our own inner-relatedness. Only God is capable of unifying our inner-selves.

      How cool is that? It means there is actually potential for me to someday understand and relate to my inner freak! I don’t know about you, but sometimes I am astounded at the craziness that exists within myself. It’s like I don’t even know myself (or recognize myself) sometimes. But, if Kierkegaard is correct, there is a being powerful enough to take all my weirdness, brokenness, fallenness, sinfulness, goodness, and loveliness and cause it all to somehow transform into an authentic human “self.” I can actually be at peace with myself and with others (and, of course, with God) if only I accept the task of allowing God to be the source and sustenance of all my relationships. I don’t have to be perfect. I don’t have to have it all together. In fact, it seems par for the course that the underlying assumption is that I do NOT have it all together, that I am a crazy, fragmented, complexity of split-ends, and that I lack all ability to get myself together on my own. How cool is that realization?!?!

      For everyone reading this who intrinsically knows that humans are meant to be communal beings, take it from Kierkegaard: God is the only hope for such a vision. The one, true God who is seen in the face of Jesus is the missing link in our quest to be social creatures!

–Matt