E-text prepared by Mark C. Orton, David Wilson, and the Project Gutenberg
Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net/c/)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Transcriber's Note: |
| |
| The original title page verso was as below. |
| |
| Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the |
| copyright on this publication was renewed. |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
HEREIN IS LOVE
by
REUEL L. HOWE
about this book
"God created man to live in relation with the world of things, with
himself, and with his fellow men, and to live in these relationships in
such a way that he will ... grow in his relationship with God," writes
Dr. Howe in this meaningful book. He describes the true significance of
Christian fellowship and how it can come about and exist. Living
responsibly by giving ourselves to one another--parent to child, child
to parent, pastor to congregation, congregation to one another, church
to the world--only in living out the Word of God's love in human
relationships can we experience the love of God.
Dr. Howe wrote this book at the request of the Division of Christian
Education and the Division of Evangelism of the American Baptist
Convention. It grew out of a series of lectures he presented at a
national conference on Christian education at Green Lake, Wis., on the
subject, "Growth in the Christian Fellowship."
It is intended that this book be used in study groups such as parent
groups or parent-teacher groups. Pastors and students of the church will
gain new insights from it. Moreover, any individual who is truly
interested in the Christian life will find that it is addressed to him.
_Cover Design by Alexander Limont_
HEREIN IS LOVE
By the same author_
_Man's Need and God's Action_
_The Creative Years_
HEREIN IS LOVE
A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Love in Its Bearing
on Personality, Parenthood, Teaching, and All Other
Human Relationships
by
REUEL L. HOWE
The Judson Press
Chicago Valley Forge Los Angeles
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Copyright (C) 1961 |
| |
| by THE JUDSON PRESS |
| |
| Sixth printing, April, 1963 |
| |
| All rights in this book are reserved. No part of the text |
| may be reproduced in any manner without permission in |
| writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief |
| quotations included in a review of the book in a magazine or |
| newspaper. |
| |
| Except where indicated otherwise, the Bible quotations in |
| this volume are in accordance with the Revised Standard |
| Version of the Bible, copyright 1946 and 1952, by the |
| Division of Christian Education of the National Council of |
| the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and |
| are used by permission. |
| |
| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NO. 61-11105. |
| |
| Printed in the U.S.A. |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
_To my children_
Marjorie and Lanny
FOREWORD
This book was born out of a living encounter with the members of the
Christian Education Conference to which I lectured at the American
Baptist Assembly at Green Lake, Wis., in August of 1958. As I stepped to
the speaker's rostrum to begin my first lecture to that group, and my
first to so large a group of Baptist lay people, I wondered whether I as
an Episcopalian and they as Baptists had images of each other that would
help or hinder our communication. I shared with them my question and
learned later they had been asking themselves the same question. I
explained that I had prepared myself to speak to them in the hope that
through me some of the truth of God would be heard by them, and I
explained also that their lives were to be their preparation for hearing
what I had to say; that is, that I hoped they would work as hard to hear
me as I would work to make myself understood. They responded in good
spirit, so that the Spirit of God spoke through and to all of us.
I describe this occasion because it produced the experience and context
out of which the present book appeared. _Herein Is Love_ is, I believe,
an outward and visible sign of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
experienced on that occasion; and I offer it as a means of opening to
others the possibility of participating in this fellowship of the Holy
Spirit.
The theme of the book grows out of that experience: As the love of God
required incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth in order that it might be
received by us, so the Word of God's love in our day calls for persons
in whom it may be embodied. The church, as the embodiment of divine love
in human relationships, has tremendous responsibilities and
opportunities in our modern culture. The old and familiar biblical
symbols and stories do not always communicate their meanings to men
today, and we must find a language that does. The language of the lived
life of both man and God is the one that we shall use here in an attempt
to open to us the meaning of the life of man and of God.
Reuel L. Howe
January 10, 1961
CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD 7
CONTENTS 9
I
SOME FRIGHTENED FRIENDS 11
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear."
--_1 John 4:18_
II
GOD IN THE WORLD 26
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...."
--_John 3:16_
III
HEREIN IS LOVE 43
"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and
he who loves is born of God and knows God."--_1 John 4:7_
IV
SOME OBJECTIVES OF LOVE 61
"Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in
deed and in truth."--_1 John 3:18_
V
THOSE WHO WOULD LOVE 82
"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because
we love the brethren."--_1 John 3:14_
VI
LOVE IN ACTION 99
"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us:
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
--_1 John 3:16_
I
SOME FRIGHTENED FRIENDS
"There is no fear in love,
but perfect love casts out fear."--_1 John 4:18_
"It seems to me that the church has lost its influence. Nobody pays much
attention to it any more, except some of its own members; and they don't
seem to be interested in anything except their own activities. The time
was when the word of the minister carried weight. Some may not have
agreed, but when the church spoke they paid attention. It's not true
now, though."
Mr. Clarke eyed the others in the group as if he were testing their
reactions to the statements he had just made. The church had always
given him a sense of security, and now he was both worried that it
seemed to have lost its power, and resentful that people no longer
listened to its teaching.
He was one of a group of leaders of a local congregation who, at the
request of their minister, were meeting to re-examine the purpose of the
church. Not all of the group had arrived as yet, and the minister of the
congregation, Mr. Gates, had been detained in his office by an emergency
call upon his pastoral care.
Within the minute after Mr. Clarke finished, Mr. Wise spoke up. He was a
thoughtful and compassionate member of the congregation who often raised
the kind of questions that carried the discussion to deeper levels. When
his questions were ignored, as they often were, he would smile
good-naturedly and continue both as a contributor and as a question
raiser. Turning to Mr. Clarke, he said: "I think I know how you feel.
The statements of our ordained spiritual leaders are important, but do
you think we should equate their words with--"
As usual, Mr. Wise's comment was interrupted, and this time by Mr.
Churchill who, with evident irritation, protested against any concern
over what others thought about the church. He said: "The church has got
to be the church, and the world is different from it. I don't like this
'return to religion' business. Christianity and the church aren't
supposed to be popular movements. If people want to join the church,
that's fine; but if they don't, that's their lookout. Let's be the
church and leave the world to itself."
"But why was Christ born _into the world_--" began Mr. Wise.
"I don't agree," exclaimed Mrs. Strait, responding to Mr. Churchill's
comment and not hearing Mr. Wise. "I think we should be concerned about
the world; concerned enough, at least, to set a good example, so that
people will know what they're supposed to live up to and to do. After
all, Jesus told us how we should live, and He did so in such simple
words that even children can understand them. All we have to do--and
it's written there for us to read--is to keep the commandments, imitate
Jesus, and live a good life for ourselves and others."
"Yes, but if it's that simple, why don't church people live better--"
"Not at all! _Not at all!_" pronounced the stately Mr. Knowles with some
disdain. "I don't agree with any of you. Our difficulties today result
from the ignorance of our people, and the answer to the problem is
education. We need to teach, and teach again. Church people must know
their faith and know why they believe in it. When I was a child I was
drilled thoroughly in the knowledge of the Bible, and I once won a prize
for knowing more Bible verses than any other child. We need more adult
education, and our children must be filled with the truth so they can
recite it forwards and backwards. In my estimation, there is too much
emphasis now on persons and not enough on the content of the faith."
"But didn't Jesus say, 'For God so loved the world--'"
"It seems to me," interrupted Professor Manby, "that all of you are in
too much of a hurry. Some scientists estimate that man has been eight
million years coming to his present state of life. In contrast,
civilized man is only four thousand years old. This being true, we
should be more patient. Given time, man will solve his problems."
"But has man's character developed in pace with his knowl--"
At that moment the Reverend Mr. Gates, with several other members of the
committee, came into the room, and after greeting everyone he said: "Now
let's get down to business. As you know, I've called this meeting in
order that we may consider the purpose of our church in this community.
I think we need a clearer understanding of why we are here. I wish we
could be surer that we are serving God's purposes and not our own. I
wish we all would assume as true that God's purposes for His church and
for us are greater than anything we may think they are, and that we
would hold our opinions and beliefs open to His correction and renewal."
"How can we be any clearer about the purpose of this church than to keep
it open and its organizations going, so that people can come to it if
they want to," exclaimed Mr. Churchill abruptly.
Mr. Wise now got to his feet, and with a twinkle in his eye began
speaking: "You've all interrupted me several times, but now I'm going to
speak my piece. I think Mr. Gates is right. We do need occasionally to
rethink the reason for our existence as a church, lest it become a
private club that caters to our own special needs. Our discussion so far
tonight suggests that we want the church to be what we need it to be. We
want God cut down to our own pattern and size. It may be that our church
is too small for God, and that we'll turn out to be a religious, but
godless, club."
"But how could that happen to us?" protested Mrs. Strait. "If we do
what's right, God will love us and use us as His obedient servants."
"I wish Mr. Gates would set us straight on these matters. Were you going
to say anything more, Pastor?" inquired Mr. Clarke.
"Yes, I'll have more to say," replied Mr. Gates slowly, "but this is not
my problem only. That's why I called you together. We need to help each
other think this question through. But to do that, we all shall need the
spirit of Christ to help us. We need to look at the concepts and
meanings that we bring out of our lives in the light of Christ's
teachings and example. He brought the gift of God's love, but He brought
also a judgment that was most disturbing to religious people. Instead of
our judging what is good for Christ, I pray that He will judge us, and
help us to be the instruments of His love."
"But you're our minister and teacher, so why don't you tell us what you
think the job of the church is in this community? I'm sure we'd all
support you in whatever you might suggest," urged Mr. Clarke.
"Mr. Clarke, I am not the church. I appreciate your confidence in me,
but I am only one member of the church. The fact that I am ordained does
not make me any more responsible for the church than you are, and I
refuse to assume your responsibilities for you. Instead, I want to use
my role as an ordained member of the church, and such training and
experience as I have had, to help you find _your_ role, so that together
we can carry on the functions of the church in ways that will serve God
and His people."
When Mr. Gates finished speaking there was silence. The reactions of his
hearers were varied, showing anxiety, irritation, confusion, and
blankness. And no wonder! The spontaneous discussion that had gone on
before Mr. Gates' arrival had revealed how little their understandings
of the church had prepared them to hear the question he was raising. The
viewpoints they had brought to the meeting now closed their minds to the
meanings he was trying to open to them.
What, then, were those concepts and meanings that made it so difficult
for them to hear and understand their minister? Each of them
represented a point of view that is widely prevalent in the church
today and which keeps the church from being fully relevant and
effective.
_Clericalism_
When Mr. Clarke thought about the church, he did so in terms of the
clergy and their work in the church. We might call him a "clericalizer";
that is, one who thinks that only the minister does the work of the
church. This idea is the basis of clericalism, the disease which saps
the strength of the church because one part of the body, the ordained
minister, is made to do the work of the rest of the body, the unordained
members. In the discussion Mr. Gates took exception to this idea, and
rightly so, for it results in a clergy that is overworked and
frustrated. Indeed, they find it impossible to do all that needs to be
done. And yet the idea has a hidden appeal for many of them, for it
feeds their professional pride and arrogance. But the damage done by
this disease does not cease there. It also makes for church people who
are lazy, who feel that the church belongs to the clergy, and who are
not themselves instruments through which God works in the world. God is
kept from doing what He would do for them, because He cannot do through
the clergy what He would do through the whole of His church.
Clericalism blocks the ministry of the church, because it tends to make
lay members second-class citizens who feel incompetent on matters of
religion. When the ordained member makes religious interpretation and
action his professional monopoly, the lay member responds by exhibiting
increasing ignorance and incompetence. Sometimes it seems as if lay
people show less intelligence in the church than in their world. It is
as though the practice of religion had a stupefying effect on them,
whereas in other areas of living they are intelligent, informed, and
perceptive. This clericalizing of the church's ministry produces in lay
members the sense that religion is separate from life. They are heard to
say to their ministers, "You stick to religion and leave the affairs of
the world to us." Religion thus becomes a Sunday business, and Sunday
business is kept separate from weekday business.
Still another and related ill effect of clericalism is that it keeps
laymen from discovering the religious significance of their work.
Parents, for example, are not only parents entrusted with the physical,
psychological, and social care of their children, but also are the
teachers, pastors, and priests of their children. A teacher may serve
God in his teaching, a doctor in his practice of medicine, a businessman
in the conduct of his business, a milkman in the delivery of milk, and
the garbageman in the collection of garbage. It is the business of the
church to help these members find their ministry, but clericalism never
allows them to make the discovery.
Clericalism, like any other concept, is more than a set of ideas. Mr.
Clarke didn't just happen to hold that notion of the church. He held it
because he needed it. His need grew out of his dependency, his timidity,
and his fear of assuming responsibility. He needed to exalt the clergy.
He wanted to be told what to believe and to do; and his "doctrine" of
the ministry, namely, clericalism, justified him in his need. People who
want to be told what to believe and to do inevitably will develop or
drift toward a doctrine that is authenticated by their need.
Ministers also contribute to the prevalence of clericalism. All men have
a very human and understandable need to be centrally important and
indispensable, and ministers are tempted to exploit this need in the
conduct of their work. It is only natural for them to think of the
church as "my church," of the people as "my people," and of the ministry
as "my ministry." These images cause them to function as if everything
depended upon them, and as if they wanted everyone to depend upon them.
Indeed, they may even measure the success of their ministry by the
number of people who depend upon them for guidance and support, rather
than by the number who are achieving mature self-sufficiency. As a part
of this same picture, some ministers are unable to accept suggestions,
much less criticism. The clericalized image they hold of themselves is
that of an "answer man"; that is, one who has all the answers to human
problems, and always right answers.
Thus, clericalism is a condition contributed to by both the ordained and
the lay members of the church, and it tragically diminishes the power of
the church. It is a symptom of Mr. Clarke's fear and of our own. It
shows that we are afraid to trust God and to let His Spirit work through
the whole of His people.
_Churchism_
Mr. Churchill's ideas, on the other hand, represented a different
concept, one which may be called churchism, or pietistic
otherworldliness, a concept which encourages the church's retreat from
the world. It creates an artificial distinction between the religious
and the secular, the religious being thought of as worship and all the
other activities that go on in the church building, and the secular
considered to be everything that goes on outside the building. In its
local version churchism is parochialism, or total preoccupation with the
church as an institution at the level of the local community.
The tragedy of such parochialism is that the creative thought and
energies of people are consumed in the mere maintenance of the church as
an institution, and in dead-end religious activity and worship. Mr.
Churchill, and thousands of others who are like him, think of the church
only as "gathered," as a congregation. They think that the church is
most truly the church when its members are assembled in the church
building and engaged in church work. They think of the church in terms
of "going to church," of working for its organizations, of planning for
its promotion, and of meeting the needs of the church as an entity
separate from the rest of life. What is even worse, these people think
that only when they are doing this church work are they serving God.
Theologically, their concept means that Christ died for the church.
Instead, Christ died for the world! The purpose, then, of the church is
not to meet its own needs but to serve God's purposes in the world. This
forces upon us the position that not only should we think of the church
in its _gathered_ sense, but also in its _dispersed_ sense. This means
that church people should think of themselves as members of the church
when they are out in the world, and that their work in the world is the
means through which God may act through them in the accomplishment of
His purposes. Therefore, in terms of the gathered church we can speak of
"church work," but in terms of the dispersed church we must think of the
"work of the church in the world," the work of the instrument of God's
purposes there.
The relation between the gathered church and the dispersed church should
be complementary. The church, as the people of God, comes together in a
conscious way from out of the world to be renewed, instructed, and
equipped for the purpose of returning, as the body of Christ, to its
task in the world. Then, out of its work in the world, the church
gathers again to worship, to make its offerings, and to be strengthened
anew for its work in the world. Elsewhere I have likened the church to
an army that has been sent on a mission. In order to accomplish its
purpose, it must have a base. In order to have a base, it must assign
certain troops to the task of building and maintaining that base, so
that the rest of the army may be free to accomplish its mission. We
tend, however, to forget the "mission" and wastefully assign most of our
people to building and maintaining bases, with the result that we do not
accomplish our true purpose. More members need to be assigned to and
trained for the mission, where the conflict between life and death goes
on unceasingly.
Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Churchill, therefore, a complementary
relation exists between the church and the world. The world is the
sphere of God's action, and the church is the means of His action. The
church must be found at work in the world, where it will encounter the
tension between the saving purposes of God and the self-centered
purposes of man.
As in the case of clericalism, so it is in the case of churchism. There
is a human reason for the existence of the concept and for its
prevalence in the church. The reason, in Mr. Churchill's case, was to
be found in the conflict that he felt between his human interests and
his church membership. He had certain real estate holdings and other
investments from which he was making an excellent profit. Some of these,
however, were exploitive and in contradiction to the faith which he
professed. It was necessary, therefore, for him to keep the church and
the world separate; and his doctrine of the church made it possible for
him to rationalize the split between his faith and his life. We must not
think that Mr. Churchill engaged in this contradiction deliberately. In
part, his action was the unconscious means by which he held on to two
conflicting values without suffering from the conflict between them. We
must not think that Mr. Churchill is alone in this kind of separation of
belief and practice, of splitting the church from the world. We all have
our own individual forms of it.
It is because of our insecurity and fear that we develop these defensive
attitudes of parochialism and churchism. We huddle like frightened
children behind the doors of the church, whereas, as soldiers of Christ,
we should be struggling courageously on the frontiers of life where the
conflicts between love and hate, truth and prejudice, are being waged.
_Moralism_
The next member of the group who spoke up was Mrs. Strait, and she
voiced for herself and for millions of other church people the
moralistic understanding of the faith. Moralism is perhaps the most
widespread of all the concepts that we are now discussing.
Moralism is usually identified as belief in good behavior as a source of
life. A group of church people, many of them leaders of their respective
parishes, were asked to describe the Christian. It would be no
exaggeration to say that their descriptions of a Christian made it
difficult to distinguish him from a Jew, because, according to their
statements, a Christian is one who achieves his status as such by
obeying the commandments of God. He must live a good life by keeping the
law. The imitation of Jesus is the method, illuminated by a study of
His teachings, especially the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. And,
as Mrs. Strait indicated, they agreed that a Christian should set a good
example for other people.
When asked how they felt about this concept of the Christian life, many
of them admitted that they were not too enthusiastic about it, because
it was hard to achieve. They admitted that they failed often and
miserably. One man put it rather well when he said that he felt that
trying to be a Christian was like whistling in the dark. They all
admitted that their concept was widespread among their fellow church
members and that it had little appeal. When they were asked why such an
unappealing concept of a Christian was so prevalent, they replied that
it was due to people's feeling that they ought to be better than they
are. Their discussion revealed further that they were unable to accept
themselves as human beings, and that they felt they had to justify
themselves by doing good works and by moral living.
That is the reason why Mrs. Strait holds to the moralistic concept of
the Christian life. Separated from her husband and feared by her
children, she feels acutely vulnerable and guilty. As a defense, she has
built for herself a fortress made up of precepts, ideals, and rules, all
based on a foundation of righteousness, and this has made her a
formidable and rigid person. Like all self-righteous people, she
tirelessly dispenses obvious truths, and keeps her own life and that of
others narrowly proscribed.
Mrs. Strait is in no way an exception. The lives of moralistic people
are not beautiful to behold. They are apt to be conventional,
legalistic, and maintainers of the status quo. Because they have no
sense of deliverance themselves, they are apt to be ungracious in
relation to others. Because they live by the law, they do not show the
fruit of the Spirit: namely, the love, joy, peace, and long-suffering
which should mark the followers of Christ. They reveal how impossible it
is for a human being to be a Christian by himself. He needs the spirit
of Christ to live in him and to remake him. As we shall see later, there
is available to us the spirit of Christ, who accomplishes in us the
righteousness of Christ which is of the spirit and not of the law.
Moralism also is a sign of our fear and defensiveness. We reduce life to
the dimensions of a moral code, because we are afraid to trust the
Spirit and to risk the dangers of love and its communication. As one
person said, "Let's be proper so we won't need to pray, for there is no
knowing what God might ask us to do if we really listened to Him." In
other words, moralism is a way of "playing it safe."
_Intellectualism_
A fourth concept sometimes held by church members about the faith was
exhibited by Mr. Knowles. Its name is intellectualism. This
intellectualism, sometimes called gnosticism, claims that knowledge is
the source of life, and that the possession of knowledge delivers us
from the power of evil. This is an ancient heresy that lives on in every
generation. The desire to know and the achievement of skill in the use
of knowledge are indeed commendable. But to know is not justifiable as
an end in itself. Knowledge about God and man, about the Bible and the
Christian faith, about the church and its history, is good and necessary
for informed Christian living, but it can in no way substitute for our
dependence upon Christ and the work of His spirit in us. We need to know
about Christian faith, but it must not replace the need to love and to
be loved. Knowledge _about_ God must not become more important than our
_knowing_ God.
When religious and theological knowledge becomes an end in itself, the
church is apt to become coldly intellectual and sophisticated. I am
reminded of a group of laymen who became avid students of Christian
theology, and who became so prideful in their achievement that they
exhibited in their relations with one another, as well as with their
other associates, a spirit of pride, arrogance, and competitiveness.
They had acquired the knowledge of Christianity, but they had lost the
spirit of the Christ.
The work of Christians is not so much to hold and transmit a knowledge
of the faith as it is to be the personal representatives and instruments
of Christ in the world. To be sure, Christ's representatives should know
what they are talking about and intellectually be able to enter into
dialogue with all men. But their knowing should incarnate them, both as
persons and in their capacity to represent God and His Christ to men.
This brings us also to a controversy that exists in the field of
Christian education. Many people feel that the purpose of the church
school is to transmit the content of the Christian faith. Christian
education, however, must be personal. It must take place in a personal
encounter, and only secondarily is it transmissive. It is true, however,
that Christian education is responsible for the continued recital of
God's saving acts, and for the transmission of the subject matter of the
historical faith and life of the Christian community. The content of our
faith was born of God's action and man's response--a divine-human
encounter. It is neither possible nor correct to reduce this to subject
matter and substitute the transmission of subject matter for the
encounter, with the assumption that it will accomplish the same purpose
(it cannot, it never has, and it never will). Actually, the relations of
transmission and encounter are complementary. Both are needed. The
church, as the tradition-bearing community, contains both poles and
should not subordinate one to the other. When the content of the
tradition is lost, the meaning of the encounter is lost, and in the end
even the encounter itself. Then tradition becomes idolatrous and
sterile. Both are necessary to the community of faith, and both are
meaningless, even dangerous, if separated. Christian teaching is
concerned with both.
Mr. Knowles, however, is not happy about the required complementary
relation between the content of the Christian faith and his life. As
Mrs. Strait uses moralism for a defense, so Mr. Knowles uses his
emphasis on the content of the Bible as a way of protecting himself from
the deeper and more personal challenges of life. He is estranged from
his family, and he is regarded as austere and unfriendly by his
employees and many of his business associates. Personal relations
frighten him, but by mastery of knowledge he gains superiority and power
over others.
Intellectualism and gnosticism are not confined to the church. We see
their influence in every walk of life. Many people _talk_ much about the
importance of love in human relationships, but they do not love. They
use their knowledge _about_ love as an evasion of their responsibility
to express love. Man cannot be saved by what he knows, but only by the
way he lives with his brother. "If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates
his brother, he is a liar."[1] This is the stern but clear word of the
Scriptures.
But we can be so frightened by the risks of expressing love that we may
turn away from those who need our love and have a right to expect it
from us. How much easier and safer it is to know _about_ God and His
love, and to confine this meaning to the sanctuary and the study group!
Intellectualism, then, is another way in which we try to "play it safe."
_Humanism_
Professor Manby speaks for humanism, another point of view in the
church. He, with others, says, "Give man time and he will work out his
own salvation." Humanists, like Dr. Manby, often react against the
religiosity of the church with the complaint that the search for truth
is cluttered with obsolete myths and meaningless observances. On the
other hand, the humanists, while splendid in their devotion to truth,
have only their opinion of what is good and true to guide them. Because
they acknowledge no life beyond this one, they become the servants of a
closed system in which injustice frustrates the justice for which they
plead and work. The plight of the humanists is pathetic. Since they
accept no savior, they can draw only on their own human resources, and
are put in the position of trying to lift themselves by their own power.
They can only whistle in the dark. While man apart from God cannot save
himself, God's love for the world works in the world, and He has a part
for man to take. In the relation between God and man, there is need for
both the greatness of God _and_ the greatness of man.
_Dealing with Conflicts_
And so these five frightened friends, familiar types to us all, reveal
to us how easy it is to get lost in our preoccupations and to distort or
diminish the truth we would serve.
Mr. Gates, the minister, has his anxieties, too. He represents the
ordained ministry of the church, which is caught between the demands of
the theory of Christianity and the demands of the world; between the
demands of the pulpit and the demands of the pew; between the church as
an institution and the church as a saving power in the world; between
the surges of the spirit and the sucking drag of tradition. And he
himself is also trapped by the demands of his image of himself as a
minister and the demands of his people's image of him; by the idealism
of his training for the Christian ministry and the realism of the
demands on his ministry in the church and in the world.
He cannot resolve these conflicts by himself, nor should he try. These
are not his conflicts. They are the conflicts of the church's ministry,
and he and the people need to deal with them together. Neither he nor
they will be able to resolve the conflicts, because they are the
inevitable tensions between the spirit and the Law, and between life and
form. But Mr. Gates and all other ministers, together with the rest of
the people of God, by reason of the Christian faith, must live through
these conflicts and deal with them creatively.
Both Mr. Gates and his people need to accept conflicts as an inevitable
part of life, especially of a life that is lived in response to a call
or a loyalty. No growth or learning takes place at any depth without
such conflict: conflict between the known and the unknown, between our
need for security and our need for maturity. This is the nature of life.
As for the gospel, let us not forget that its universally accepted
symbol is the cross, a symbol of the conflict between love and hate,
between life and death. As Christians, our only realistic expectation is
that because of our Christian belief and practice, our conflicts will
increase and intensify rather than diminish. The only peace we may hope
to have is an irrational peace, an "in-spite-of" peace, the peace of
the depths beneath the storm-tossed surface; in other words, "the peace
of God, which passes all understanding."[2] To suggest how this may be
achieved in some areas of life is the purpose of this book.
Finally, Mr. Wise, the member of the group whose remarks were always
being interrupted by the others, represents a Christian point of view
which, in the church generally, is listened to no more than it was here.
What he was trying to say will be explored more fully as an answer to
some of the questions raised in this chapter.
[1] 1 John 4:20.
[2] Phil. 4:7.
II
GOD IN THE WORLD
"For God so loved the world
that he gave his only Son...."--_John 3:16_
The concepts and attitudes of Mr. Clarke, Mr. Churchill, Mrs. Strait,
Mr. Knowles, and Professor Manby lead them and the rest of the church
away from God and the world. Their clericalism, pietism, moralism,
intellectualism, and humanism represent ways in which frightened and
disturbed people seek to make themselves secure. Unfortunately, however,
their security then is purchased at the price of their freedom. Their
lives become locked up in the small closet of their limited concepts.
Their literal and rigid understanding of the Christian church and its
faith makes them so loveless that their lives have an alienating effect
on others, and they themselves fail to find God.
_Concepts About God May Be Dangerous_
They do not, nor shall we, find God in our concepts about Him or about
His church. He is not to be found in assertions about Him or in abstract
belief about His omnipotence or other attributes. God is not an idea,
but Being itself, and our ideas are only our concept or image of Him.
When we confuse God with our ideas about Him, we are misled into
thinking that we know what He wants, and we tend to represent and act
for Him uncritically. This confusion between God and our ideas about Him
explains why the religion of so many people lacks humility and
reverence. It is one of the reasons why true Christian fellowship is as
rare as it is.
Not only may these ideas and concepts lead us away from God, but also
they may lead us out of the world and away from that encounter with the
world which began with the Incarnation. Separation of the church from
the world, its assumption that its task is to defend itself from the
attacks of the so-called secular, its defensiveness of God in response
to the unfaith of the world, all are symptoms of church people's lack of
faith in God and of their failure to understand how and where He works.
In other words, the otherworldliness of the church hardly harmonizes
with the worldliness of God, Who chose to create the world, to speak and
act in and through it, and Who finally entered it and made the life of
man in history His right hand. Our belief in the Incarnation and our
understanding of the love of God for the world should send us, as
children of God, into the world, into the so-called secular order, eager
to participate in its meanings, and to bring them into relation with the
meanings of God.
As we work at this, we shall begin to experience true Christian
fellowship, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which I understand to be
the fellowship of people who have the courage to live together as
persons rather than to relate themselves to each other through their
ideas and preconceptions. Christian fellowship is living with and for
one another responsibly, that is, in love. "If any one says, 'I love
God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar."[3] And, "He who abides in
love abides in God, and God abides in him."[4] If we would find God,
therefore, and learn the meaning of life and love, we must live in the
world by giving ourselves to one another responsibly. It is for this
that the church exists. The church does not exist to save, build up, and
adorn itself. Nor does it exist to protect or defend God. The mission of
the church is to participate in the reconciling dialogue between God and
man. Here is the source of the true life of the world. Here, too, is the
source of the life of the church and its worship. Without this,
everything, including worship, is false and idolatrous.
These are some of the things which Mr. Wise was trying to say to the
group. He represents those in the church who see beneath the surface of
things and behind the distortions of conventional and defensive
Christianity. But the question that finally emerges is: How do we free
ourselves from the distortions of our faith? What should we do?
_We Find God at Work in the World_
The answer is simple. We should look for God in the world. We shall find
Him in the meeting between men. "Where two or three are gathered in my
name, there am I in the midst of them."[5] And, "gathered in my name"
means gathered in the spirit and after the character of Jesus. It does
not mean gathered only under special and separate religious auspices. To
be sure, the gatherings of God's people for worship and instruction are
indispensable to the life of the church, but unless we translate our
worship and instruction into action, our religious observances will be
idolatrous and sinful, and will separate men from each other and from
God. So we look for God where He works; that is, in the world and
between man and man.
The place where we encounter God first, in the course of our individual
lives, is in the family. The family provides the individual with his
first experience of living in relation to other persons, and this is his
first experience of Christian fellowship. Immediately we are confronted
with the nature of God's creation and, therefore, with the revelation of
Himself and of how He works. We are confronted with the relational
nature of all life; for nothing exists in isolation. Everything and
every person finds full meaning only in relation to other things and
persons.
We are used to thinking of persons as living in relation to persons; we
are less accustomed to thinking of things existing in relation to other
things. But does not the tree exist in relation to the earth,
atmosphere, and water? And does not the hammer exist as hammer in
relation to the hand that uses it and the object it pounds? The only
difference is that persons are active participants in relationship and
things are passive. But things may be made active symbols or instruments
in the meeting between man and man, as, for instance, in the case of the
bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
God created man to live in relation with the world of things, with
himself, and with his fellow men, and to live in these relationships in
such a way that he will discover and grow in his relationship with God.
The terms "man" and "relationship" are synonymous. An old Roman proverb
puts it, "One man is no man at all." Alone we would cease to exist. We
all have had the experience of being shut out from some important
relationship and we know what a desperate feeling it produces. We lose
whatever sense of well-being we may have had, and we begin to feel
unwanted, depressed, and less alive. When we are warmly gathered again
into an important group, we begin to come alive. Our blood runs faster,
and we know the joy of life again. It is almost as though we had been
resurrected. The sense of being a part, the experience of fellowship,
makes the difference between life and death. I once visited in a home
where a teen-age girl was having one of her frequent "tragic" love
experiences. The boy she was currently dating had not called her up for
three days. She was full of gloom, moped around the house, and lost her
usual interest in everything. One evening the phone rang and the call
was for her. First we heard her laugh, and then she burst into the room
full of gaiety and enthusiasm. You would not have known her for the same
girl. Alone and rejected, as she thought, she was dead. Restored to
relationship, she came alive again. We may smile patronizingly at the
emotional excesses of this teen-age girl, but on the other hand we
understand deeply the fundamental meaning of her experience.
The patterns of relationship begin with our birth. We would not survive
if the whole community, centering in the basic function of the mother,
did not assume responsibility for us. Our dependence upon her for food
and care is the occasion for the beginning of relationship. And both the
infant and the mother have their part to play. She moves as a person
toward her child with the gifts of her milk and of her love. The infant,
on his side, in random and non-specific ways, calls out to her. He cries
and makes his simple movements. She responds to his cries with her care.
He responds to her care by sleeping and waking, by crying and cooing.
And thus begins the dialogical nature of relationship.
_Relationship Is Dialogue_
Relationship is dialogue. Dialogue occurs when one person addresses
another person and the other person responds. It is a two-way process in
which two or more people discuss meanings that concern them. To whatever
degree one part of the dialogue is lost, to that degree the relationship
ceases to exist. A marriage, for instance, ceases to exist, except in
form, only when either one of the partners ceases to communicate with
the other, and the quality of address and response is lost. Likewise,
true religion disappears when it represents only what God says and
eliminates the meaning of man's response. Religious dogma is sometimes
used to shackle human creativity, and the form of belief is allowed to
stifle the vitality of faith. Similarly, religion disappears when the
address to God and the response of God are eliminated. The Pharisee in
Jesus' parable had lost the dialogical quality of his prayer because he
"stood and prayed thus with himself...."[6] He was not speaking to God
and he expected no response, with the result that his religion lost its
dialogical quality since he was separated from God by his
self-righteousness. This dialogical quality is indispensable to creative
living. It is out of the dialogical encounter that the individual
emerges.
Only by the process of dialogical teaching can children really learn.
The relationship between parent and child is not one-sided. The child
may protest against the authority of the parent. This is the child's
part of the dialogue. The parent may recognize his child's need to find
himself as an autonomous person by making allowance for his protest and
exercise of freedom. The next stage in the dialogue between them is the
reassurance which the child experiences and reflects in his behavior in
response to his parent's affirmation of him as a person. He may show
this by a more realistic acceptance of the parent's authority. This in
turn may reassure the parent, so that he feels more relaxed in the
exercise of his authority. Gradually the parent and the child begin to
experience a more mature relationship with each other.
_We Are Responsible for Each Other_
Because of the dialogical nature of relationship, we have responsibility
for one another. Each of us has a responsibility to call forth the other
as a person, and each needs to be called forth since none of us will
develop automatically. We call forth one another in the same way that
the conductor of an orchestra calls forth the powers of his musicians
and the potentialities of their instruments. And they respond by calling
forth the interpretive genius of their conductor. Each draws out the
powers of the other.
The potentialities for development are inherent in us, but we need the
warmth and stimulation of other persons. This is certainly true in the
case of the newly born. The role of parents and teachers is to call
forth and welcome the personal responses and initiatives of their
children. This is also true of those who, because of the pressures of
life, start to unfold as persons but then withdraw in order to protect
themselves from further hurt. Here again, parents and teachers, pastors
and counselors, and indeed all men, from time to time, are obliged to
call forth some soul who is either in hiding or in retreat.
This role is easy to see in our relation with children, because
children's responses are sometimes so uncomplicated that the process we
are talking about is clearly revealed. Susie, feeling that an injustice
had been done her, retreated to her room and withdrew into herself.
After seeing that she would need help in order to come to herself again,
her mother finally asked her if she would like to help her bake a cake.
Soon Susie and her mother were chatting happily together in the kitchen
doing something that Susie loved to do whenever her mother had time to
help her. During the course of their conversation, the mother had an
opportunity to help Susie understand the situation that had upset her.
As a result, Susie emerged out of the situation more mature and
resourceful.
I once knew a bus driver who discovered that he, too, could call forth
people by the way in which he greeted them and did business with them.
On his morning runs he observed that many people were grumpy and sullen,
and treated him and their fellow passengers discourteously. At first his
inclination was to respond in the same way. Then he discovered that by
taking the initiative and greeting his passengers with a smile and
cordial word, and by making change cheerfully and being patient with
their grumpiness, the spirit of his passengers underwent a
transformation. Over the years a number of people told him how grateful
they were for his good cheer. They said that his influence had often
been decisive in their lives. It had affected their relations with other
people. Thus, his attitude toward people and his method of relating
himself to them as a driver of a bus became his ministry; and since he
was a member of the church, the church's ministry reached out and worked
through that bus driver into the lives of many who may never have come
anywhere near the church. Through such relationships. God is present and
active in the world.