|
[Comment]
add your
site
click
here to help ginkworld with a $10.00 donation
|
ON.THEOLOGY
WHAT’S ON SECOND
by
doug jackson
second
baptist church
www.2bc.org
Harold Frederic, in his novel The Damnation of Theron Ware, creates
a conversation between The Reverend Mr. Ware, a devout young Methodist, and
Dr. Ledsmar, an atheistic physician, over the relative views of grace taken by
Catholics and evangelicals. The question arises when Ware finds that the local
priest has gone to hear confessions from lapsed drunkards. In answer to the
doctor’s query, the minister explains that habitual boozers in his
congregation take a different path. "If a man got as bad as all that, he
wouldn’t come near the church at all. He’d simply drop out, and there
would be an end to it."
The old infidel rejoins, "If you don’t mind my saying so - of course
I view you all impartially from the outside - but it seems logical that a
church should exist for those who need its help, and not for those who by
their own profession are so good already that it is they who help the church.
Now, you turn a man out of your church who behaves badly: that must be on the
theory that his remaining in would injure the church, and that in turn
involves the idea that it is the excellent character of the parishioner which
imparts virtue to the church. The Catholics’ conception, you see, is quite
the converse. Such virtue as they keep in stock is on tap, so to speak, here
in the church itself, and the parishioners come and get some for themselves
according to their need for it."
I think the old Chillingworth has summed things up nicely. Of course, I
would argue from the New Testament that Rome errs in arrogating to the pope
and his pyramid a monopoly on grace. At the same time, I feel compelled to
examine the individualist view taken by those of us in the free church. While
the Catholics, perhaps, see the Kingdom as a soup kitchen where beggars come
to receive what they cannot obtain for themselves, we have too often made it
an isolated meal, a sort of self-contained TV dinner where one eats what he
has and starves if he runs out.
Perhaps the corrective here is the image of that mainstay of Baptist church
polity, the potluck. At such a gathering, everyone brings the food and
everyone eats the food, but no one’s share of the provender is based on his
own contribution, and no one really knows who brought what. My tray of baloney
sandwiches is my ticket to someone else’s smoked brisket; indeed, even sans
sandwiches, the beef is mine for the taking.
When the Corinthians gathered for their love-feasts (1 Corinthians
11.17-34), the wealthy members came first and ate best, leaving the
down-market membership both hungry and embarrassed. Paul’s remedy was to put
an end to such institutional smorgasbords. Of course, where love is anemic,
law must support, but love remains the ideal. The better situation would be
one where everyone had an equal shot at the trough, and the neediest headed up
the procession.
The church, then, the gathered body of believers, is not the authorized
distributor of grace, which leads to institutional abuse, but neither is it
the showcase of grace where the upright display their superiority. It is the
great spiritual potluck, where everyone is needed, no one neglected, and no
one indispensable.
So come to church to bring grace, and come to church to get grace. Don’t
keep score as to how much you give and how much you take. Simply rejoice when
it is your time to provide, and rejoice more when it is your time to receive.
|
