Previous Post – Epic Fail Pastors Conference 2012
Last week, I wrote about the realities of suffering and the church. Jesus seemed fairly clear that those who follow Him would suffer for it, suggesting that a church that does not suffer may not be following Christ as He has called them to. Again, we are not to go looking for suffering for its own sake, but to be unwaveringly bold as we dare to live out the teachings of Jesus, to follow Him, not just worship Him.
It is all too easy for us to define our position as a “persecuted” community through the lens of things which we stand against. In other words, as we publicly oppose abortion, it is not uncommon to be vocally rejected and despised by many people in the world. However, while such stances are necessary (even if we have gone about it poorly more often than not), I do not believe that our true suffering will primarily about what we oppose. Instead, following Christ will produce a community whose behaviour, even internally, will offend and threaten the powers that be.
Perhaps one of the most critical of such behaviours in early church history was the practice of hospitality, especially with respect to welcoming people of very diverse, even divergent, economic positions. Early Christian communities were often characterized by their inclusion of the rich and the poor together. It was not simply that both were included, but rather than the nature of that inclusion was intentionally subversive to the expectations and patterns of the world. The poor were not condescended to or merely tolerated, but often given the place of honour, while the rich were encouraged to humble themselves in the community.
It is critical, at this stage, to understand that Jesus (and His wider Jewish tradition) held very integrated view the material and the spiritual with respect to poverty/wealth. In other words, it is not merely a matter of if you have great wealth or no wealth nor is simply a matter of being “spiritually” rich or poor. It was both. Jesus affirmed that follow Him would lead to a life in which the bondage of material wealth would be loosened and our commitment to generosity, simplicity and hospitality would lend itself to an economic place that was more likely to be humble than in abundance.
This is part of Jesus’s upside down kingdom, living in a way so contrary to the way of the world that it seems ludicrous. And yet, Jesus calls us into communities where poverty (as nuanced above) is something we are to take joy in, while wealth (again, nuanced) something that should teach us humility. While we do not have the space to get into this in detail here, the point is that our communities should relate to the dynamics of economics differently than the world does.
However, what is most critical for us to recognize is that the rich and the poor did not just happen to be part of the same community, but were there by necessity. Unlike today, where choosing a Christian community is akin to shopping the market, the early Christians were a minority, an often persecuted minority at that. Thus, they found themselves together as a community of diversity.
That diversity, while perhaps a necessity in their context, was hugely formational to the nature of their community and the focus of their ministry. The Roman Emperor Julian commented (disdainfully) on such an identity when he said that their numbers were “specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.” In other words, they were selflessly caring for the very people who persecuted and killed them. And this was a threat to the empire and its interests.
All this is to say that, when we consider becoming a community that suffers for Christ, we should give special attention to how we relate to those of lower or higher economic status. Do our church communities truly and functionally honour the poor? Do we encourage the wealthy to humble themselves? How often is the reverse true? These are critical questions for us to unflinchingly ask ourselves.
However, it goes much deeper than this. After all, unlike the early church, necessity does not require most of us to share life with people of different economic or social status. As a result, our communities lack the powerful formation that shapes who we are and the ministry we engage in. Such an admission requires that we ask much harder questions, such as: Might obedience to Christ call demand a re-orientation, even relocation, to intentionally pursue such relationships? If such a response is necessary, are we willing to uproot ourselves, our families, perhaps even our churches in order to follow Him? As I am fond of saying, when God said there should be no poor among you, He wasn’t recommending segregation.
What does this have to do with suffering? Without question, the radical reorientation I believe that God is calling His church to will threaten the powers that be, both in the world and among the religious status quo. It is only when we begin to invite people into our homes, attempt to feed the hungry in our communities, create alternatives for economic justice- it is only in the midst of such a reorientation that begin to discover our counter-cultural Christ’s community is called to be and how many of the world’s (and the church’s) systems resist such a change.
Not every Christian is called to move into a poor neighbourhood (though far more are called to that than are obediently responding). However, every Christian is called to live a life of generous simplicity and radical hospitality in whatever context they are called (again, not one they simply happen to be in- there is nothing incidental about place). Every Christian is called to participate in a community that is seeking to be formed into the image of Christ- a formation that necessitates sacrificial and costly choices.
What do you think? Am I overstating my case? If not, what response should we give?
