07 September 2009 10:06
consider two brothers, farmers both. they get along well enough, but there's some fundamental difference in how they practice farming. perhaps the one focuses on what the market did last year and plans accordingly while the other focuses more on what he thinks he'll need to store up. perhaps the one prefers to patch up and use old and smaller equipment while the other goes into debt to buy new, larger, and more efficient equipment. exactly what matters not, but let it stand that they have a difference.a number of situations are possible. if the brothers still lived with their father, they would farm according to how their father directed. they might chafe, and relations might worsen if the differences were strong enough; but the authority clearly lies with the father. or perhaps they live on the same farm, owned by one of the brothers. again the authority would lie clearly with the brother who owned. he may be open to trying his brother's ideas, but the owner clearly has the final say. but let's say that the brothers each own their own farms, one next to the other. there's nothing to say that these two brothers—amiable, caring for each other, yet with fundamental differences in practices—that these two brothers can't get along. not only do they get along peaceably, but they help each other out.
what's the purpose of a farm? one simplified answer: to provide sustenance for the owner's family/community. it doesn't matter whether the method is different between the two brothers...they're both striving to provide sustenance. they could argue for hours on end on methodology, but when it's time to get the hay in before it rains or to raise a new barn...there's no point in arguing when there's work to be done.
this is my analogy for churches (all members of the same body of Christ) working together. our goal should be the same, regardless of method: save the lost, care for the saved*. vitriolic arguments over matters of dress, involvement in government, or the color of the carpet in the sanctuary can wait until everybody (and i mean everybody, all 6.8 billion of us) has heard the good news, been fed, clothed, and has a roof over their heads. yes, some of those matters are important...but when rain threatens you make hay instead of arguing whether to make round bales or square bales. better yet you start on opposite sides of the field with both balers.
i'm not in favor of complete abandonment of theological discussion. if you make round bales but have no equipment to load or haul them, then those bales are going to rot uselessly in the field. but on general principal it's better to work at saving souls than to devote too much energy on deciding how to save souls. no matter how we perfect and tune our approach, people are saved not by us—but by God through us. it's not our responsibility to get it perfect, it's our responsibility to do our best.
originally one of my example differences between the two brothers was "perhaps the one felt any given field should lie fallow one year in seven, while the other thought that was a waste in resources". i didn't leave it in because i didn't want to muddy the waters by mixing a religious example into a secular analogy. but what does happen if the rain is threatening and the hay's not in but it's sunday? one brother works on sunday, the other doesn't. the one brother helped out on saturday, now it's sunday and time for the favor to be returned...
i like some other aspects of this analogy, here's a random three:
– even if the two brothers don't spend much time helping each other farm, they should spend time in fellowship. after all, they're brothers and they live right next to each other.
– what happens if run-off from one farm damages crops on the other farm (eg, if one church's legalistic practices create a negative impression on the secular community towards all churches)?
– what about good farming practices? sowing the same crop over and over, year after year in the same field with no regard to soil nutrition or changing climate or market conditions would be poor farming. just as paul studied the athenians before preaching to them so each church should know the community it is trying to reach and adapt accordingly.
ah, and where is it the one brother's place to discipline the other? working/not working on sunday, both sides can understand the other's argument even if they disagree on which to choose. going into debt to buy equipment can make sense to one and utterly perplex the other. but sowing salt in a field, or indiscriminant use of illegal pesticides that wind up in the local water supply...these are clearly wrong. they clearly violate good farming practices. wearing a covering, or worshiping on saturday instead of sunday—understandable, they're within reason. condoning abortion, ordaining homosexuals—clearly wrong, clearly in violation of God's will. (no matter how much you argue that the EPA's wrong in declaring pesticide X illegal...it's still illegal, if you disagree take it up with the EPA**). how will the one brother relate to the other? i don't know the answer, but i do know that above all things it will involve love. it will also involve telling the propper authorities (God) about it.
no matter how much i might wish the christian life were black and white, i expect to be finding grey areas until i die. so i'm thankful for all Jesus' examples, "the kingdom of heaven is like...". and thankful for the random analogies he pops into my head when thinking about God's great big often grumpy family.
*my personal paraphrase of the great commission, which we could probably argue about for hours on end
**uh, and i by no means equate the EPA with God, that's just how the analogy worked out when talking off the top of my head. but yeah, good luck getting God to change his mind on homosexuality.
10:06 email me permalink / commentary (0)
