Social Bookmarks
Tradition Five
Again, before I start, I want to make mention of the usage of assembly in lieu of “church.” Please refer to the previous post for an explanation.
Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the
alcoholic who still suffers.
One primary purpose… one reason for meeting… to help the alcoholic who still suffers. Does the church exist to help the human who still suffers?
Lets skip over the fact that must assemblies actually cause more suffering to their people then they do good, and look instead at the heart of “church.”
Why do we exist?
When you go to an assembly (of “believers”), normally, it’s to get “fed,” to recieve that spiritual insight that you missed out on yourself. I’m not stating that teaching in assemblies is a bad idea, in fact I quite support it, but often times I wonder if this teaching is the central goal of an assembly. I know that the reformers were large fans of preaching, I believe it was Calvin who said that the church should never assemble without preaching and praying, but should that truly be our central goal.
If we are to, as Andrew said, simply make “Following Christ” our central goal, how would that look when we took on this tradition as our own? Would we state something along the lines of “Each assembly exists for one primary purpose–to carry it’s message to the human who still suffers.” And, if we stated such an ideal, how well would we go about carrying it out?
Would we move from assemblies where we are preached at to assemblies where we actually build caring relationships? Relationships that could then lend a hand to their members when one gets hurt? Relationships that would offer the hope of Christ rather than the condemnation of sin?
Would we learn to better spot suffering, or even, daresay, open our eyes to the suffering closest to us? Would we be willing to part with our money, our time, and perhaps even our safety, to carry the message of hope to those that still suffer?