Jim and John were both elders at Prince of Peace Christian Church, but they never got along. In fact, whenever an issue came up where Jim voted “Yes”, you could be sure that “John” would vote “No.”
As was bound to happen, Jim passed away. There he was at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter was there deciding who could come in. Jim was surprised to find out that the admittance requirements were a bit different than he had heard. First Peter checked to make sure that the person’s name was in the book, than he gave them a spelling word. Jim’s spelling word was “Jesus” so he got in without a problem.
People have jobs in heaven. Jim’s was to assist Peter checking the names and giving the spelling words. As is the way of things, Jim’s old rival John passed away and there he was in line waiting to see Peter. Jim checked the list and John’s name was there. Jim had to choose a word for the spelling test. He picked “Albuquerque”
This is the seventh sermon in our series “Building God’s Church.” This series is loosely based on the book by Bob Russell, “When God Builds a Church” Today’s topic is Harmony.
First, let’s think about that word. What is “harmony” anyway? It is a musical term, but it doesn’t mean everybody singing the same notes at the same time. The term for that is “unison.” Harmony implies diversity. Different people are singing different notes, but all for a common purpose. The diversity blends together to create a fuller and richer sound than could ever be achieved by people singing unison.
Ministers have favorite sermons – not favorite sermons to listen too, but favorites to deliver. One of my favorites is a sermon I call “Thumbs Up” I’ve been preaching some version of that sermon since I was in college. It is based on this Ephesians text which was the lectionary reading last October, so that gave me an excuse to deliver that sermon here.
You might remember the illustration. I asked everyone to fold their hands like they were going to pray. Go ahead. Do that now. Fold your hands like this. Interlace your fingers. Now look at your thumbs. Which thumb is on top? Then I talked about how we had a division in the church, with some people praying with their right thumbs on top while the rest of us pray properly with our left thumbs on top. Do you remember?
As Bob Russell points out, harmony is one of the keys to building an effective church. Because we are not perfect people, we always will have differences of opinion within the congregation. That is a fact. The question is not “How can we all be the same?” but “How can we get along in spite of our differences?” How do we maintain the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace?
The place to start is to think about the things that divide congregations and create the disunity that divides us and saps our strength. Bob Russell mentions three kinds of differences, but I want to add a forth.
False Teaching
One of the threats to unity that Russell mentions is false teaching. From his perspective it is critical that the church present clear teachings that reflect the best understanding of the elders of what scripture teaches. All of the church’s communication and practice need to be consistent with that teaching.
As we talked about at the start of this series, the approach to truth is different in our tradition than it Russell’s. Our elders are not about to have a meeting and tell us what the church’s official interpretation of some passage is going to be. We do have key elements that we expect every Christian to accept. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. We accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. Beyond that, we value differences of perspective and we seek to embrace a variety of views. How do we achieve harmony and diversity at the same time?
I think that there are two keys to maintaining unity in the midst of different understanding. The first is to focus on our common purpose and the second is to agree on an overarching standard.
Our core beliefs are certainly important, but the success of the church is much more dependent on what we do with those beliefs. If we are actively engaged with our community, really seeking to make a difference in the lives of people around us, differences on a variety of theological issues become insignificant. It is when we become inwardly focused that we risk becoming obsessed with secondary items of philosophy and theology.
The other thing that we need is a common standard. In our tradition, it is not the case that any wild idea has to be considered valid. We are committed to the New Testament as our ultimate authority on issues of faith and practice. Acceptance of this standard is key to our heritage and to who we are as a people. Abandoning our only accepted standard would throw us into chaos because, in our tradition, there is no other authority to take the place of Scripture. But if we share that common ground, the issue is not my opinion vs. your opinion. Instead, it is both of us seeking to understand what Scripture teaches. That moves the focus away from personality and toward a shared desire to live out in our modern society the changeless mission of God.
Traditionalism
Bob Russell spends much of this particular chapter talking about the tension between traditionalism and cultural engagement. This is an inherent problem in almost every congregation.
People are in a church because it meets their needs. The rituals and practices of the church are not simply comfortable, they are reassuring. In a world full of chaos and change, the church becomes a sanctuary where things move at a slower pace
People in the congregation like the style of music that they have grown up with. They see meaning in the prayers and the readings. They understand how the service is structured and the flow makes sense to them. The nature of the service is so tied to their understanding of the faith that changing the service feels like an attack on the faith that they cherish. The line between substance and style is blurred indeed.
The problem is that there are other people out there, often our own children, who do not have the heritage that we have. The musical structure of a hymn is utterly different from the kind of music that expresses their passions. The pace is too slow. They grew up on video games and want a service that is fast paced and stimulates all of their senses.
Different people have made an effort to identify the tipping point. When was it that our culture changed? My own theory is that the world key moment happened in 1959. It was the introduction of Jiffy Pop.
You think that I am kidding, but I am serious. Jiffy Pop changed our society. Jiffy Pop was the first convenience food. Prior to 1959, when somebody wanted popcorn, they had to pull out a pan, pour in oil, get it hot, and add a measured amount of popcorn seeds. With Jiffy Pop, every thing was all measured out and ready for you. All you had to do was put the Jiffy Pop on the stove, shake and heat for three minutes, and you had popcorn.
Jiffy Pop set us on the road to instant gratification and convenience foods. It led to the acceptance of TV dinners. It paved the way for jet travel, interstates, and instant mashed potatoes. Jiffy Pop was the beginning of the end for real civilization.
Now we live in a world where everything is fast paced. We even have a fast food chain advertising that “you deserve a break today.” Think about that. Today, taking ten minutes to wolf down a burger and fries from a fast food joint is considered a break. We are in the rat race, and the rats are winning.
While there are some that never want our churches to change, there are others who wonder what our typical service looks like to an outsider.
Imagine for a moment that you are a thirty-something person who happens to wander into our service some Sunday. What do they see? The music they hear might remind them of the music appreciation class that they were forced to take in college, but it isn’t like anything that they choose to listen to themselves. People stand up and sit down at odd times, for no apparent reason. Most of the congregational singing is done from a book. The words seem strange and you can’t read the music. Sometimes there are songs that are sung or things that people recite that aren’t in the book. Some of this is vaguely familiar and you try to mumble along, but it really means nothing.
There is the tension. How much of our service is given over to making us comfortable, and how much do we need to adapt to make our service approachable to our guests? Do we want guests? Do we want them to become part of us? For that to happen, who needs to change? Them or us? Where is the balance?
This is a true story. In 1917 there was a conference of Russian Orthodox Bishops. Different congregations had different practices about when they used different colors to decorate their sanctuaries. The main topic for the meeting was to come to agreement about the colors and by doing that to bring more unity to the church. At the same time that the bishops were meeting, the Russian revolution began on the streets of Petrograd. There has never been a starker example of the church focusing on the most minor of issues while failing to engage the culture and address the concerns of the people.
We, as a congregation, must recognize that change makes people uncomfortable. Changes must occur at a comfortable pace. The familiar and comfortable must be honored for the role that it has played. The meanings of the rituals and the importance of our heritage can be taught. Fads must be avoided.
Still, the bottom line is that the church must address the needs of each new generation. We will die as a congregation if we do not find ways to connect to new generations of believers. No generation has ever had a greater need to hear the message that the church has been entrusted to carry than today’s generation.
The question is not if we as a church will change. We must. The questions are different. What will be the pace of change? When is change happening too fast? What parts of our service are most foreign to our culture? What parts of our service are so tied to the heart of the faith that they should not be changed?
If we choose to be a church that will grow - if we choose, not just to survive, but to thrive and prevail, we will have to be a church that finds new ways to connect to our culture.
Each of us will need to be flexible in order to move through a period of transformation and revitalization. We must be united in our desire to meet the needs of people who have not yet walked through those doors.
Power
The third threat to unity that Russell mentions is simply the desire to be in control. The church is a social organization. Some people will be in leadership positions and others will not. People will make decisions with which others disagree.
Sometimes we like to dress up our decisions and say that what we are advocating is an expression of the church’s faith or mission. We like to feel as if we are more enlightened or more faithful than others.
Unfortunately, the truth is that church struggles are often about nothing more noble than who will be in charge – who will have the power.
Healthy churches keep the focus on the mission. The leaders see themselves as servants, both to the members of the congregation and to the Lord who leads us all.
A growing church is a church that actively seeks to bring different people into various leadership roles. The roles are defined in terms of the ministry that they provide, not the power that they wield. People contribute to leadership based on their talents and call, not the formal office that they hold.
Politics
There is a fourth source of disunity that Russell does not mention, but that I think is a real problem in the church today. People are using the church to promote their own political agendas.
In our tradition, social justice is very much part of who we are. The church can, and should, speak out on moral issues that our society is facing.
Consider our fine history. The church was involved in the abolition of slavery, in getting the vote for women, in passing laws to restrict the sale of alcohol, the civil rights movement, apartheid in South Africa, and the spread of AIDS. Not every effort has been equally successful, but these efforts arose within the church and were real expressions of the church’s concern for the society. I think these sort of principled efforts are healthy.
I also believe that we as a congregation should have the courage to discuss social and political issues. We can ask the question and search together to see what enlightenment we can draw from Scripture and church tradition.
Unfortunately, I think that the historical role of the church in social issues is being distorted in a way that harms the church. Instead of a certain social stand arising from faith; we are at a place where politicians are using the church to promote their particular views.
In my opinion, the Justice Sunday events that took place last year were an example of this. Political action groups who were engaged in a debate on the role of the Supreme Court each mobilized competing church groups in an effort to promote the notion that God was on their side. I think that churches on both sides erred by allowing themselves to be used this way. It diminishes the ability of the church to take real positions on real issues.
The World Council of Churches met last week. What was the headline? Did the media focus on church efforts to combat AIDS in Africa? No. The headline was that the Council of Churches passed a resolution condemning the use of the military to combat terrorism. Was that the most important issue they addressed? Was that a burning issue in the more than 300 denominations that are part of the organization? No. It was a pet political position that the council should have simply ignored.
Our own denomination is not immune to these efforts. The big news headline coming out of our own General Assembly was a resolution condemning the wall being built by Israel. Was that a major social justice issue for our churches? No. It was our denomination validating the position of some political special interest. We cheapen our moral position when we stoop to passing political platform planks. Such items do us no good, and they damage the unity of the church.
Where do we find unity?
It depends on our Christian character. Paul gives us five elements of character that will enable us to work together in harmony. He calls on us to have humility (that is to value others and not over value ourselves). We are to have gentleness. Our goal is not to defeat our opponents in some sort of competition, but to develop loving relationships that seek what is best for the other. Paul says we must be patient. Others may not move at the same pace as we are. Give them time. Paul says we must have mutual forbearance. That simply means that we have to put up with others. It isn’t fancy. It’s like what you do with your relatives. And Paul’s final characteristic is love. We are to be characterized, not just by our love for humanity, but by our love for each other. A growing church should be the most obviously loving place on earth.
But where does all this come from? What is the reason for this conduct? We have a larger purpose. What holds us together?
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
No matter what our differences, we have reason to work together. We share a belief in one God and one Savior. We have a mission to proclaim the message of that Saviors love in our culture. When we fuss a fight, we divert our energies and discredit our message. God gave us a task. We must work together to achieve it.
That is what this church is about. We serve one God and Father of all. You can be part of something great. You can become part of a church that is ready to grow because we are a church that is ready to love.
