When the church goes dating

"No guy has the right to have a girl do him "favors" simply because he buys her dinner and a movie."

But there is a sense of entitlement that many times develops in relationships when a guy does a girl favors, in hopes she will reciprocate.

Most people know that this is not good when it comes to dating, but I have noticed that churches do "charity" in much the same way. When engaged in acts of giving or helping others we consider "needy" there is the unwritten expectation that those people will reciprocate by comming to church, and in short order getting saved. We are in fact inviting them out on a cheap date in hopes of getting something from them in return.

This leads to the very real sense in which we try to buy people for the kingdom. We put on community festivities, humanitarian projects,  and vacation bible schools, but these do not actually earn us a hearing for the Gospel. We don't actually have the right to expect people to come to church or listen to the Gospel, or have some extra push to make a profession of faith merely because we have done something for them. In fact, the real result may actually  be that we are attempting to exploit the poor, and though we may have helped a material need, there is shame in being used, and the victims of our charity will likely not darken the door of a church that has treated them like a cheap date.

On the other hand, if we simply develop real relationships with people and interact with them as human beings worthy of respect and dignity, then we will eventually find it natural to share not just the Gospel but our friendship, which they probably need more than our charity anyway.

Moral communities

A recent Christianity Today article caught my attention in a comment about what it means to belong to a moral community.  In the context of the struggle to find a Biblical and culturally aware stance on LGBT issues the presedent of Gordon Conwell said the following, 

"Voluntary, moral communities by definition require boundaries. Folks say, “I willingly place myself under the authority of this community if I’m going to be part of it.” I made that decision when I came to Gordon. I’m willing to relinquish my individual rights out of a shared commitment to what’s good for the community."

It caught my eye because I have been listening to a series of podcasts through the Old Testament (Torahclass.com) and as I listened through Leviticus 18 and 19, the statement was made that Holiness, by God's definition, looks a lot like morality.

Whether it was true in practice or not Israelite society was a moral community with strikingly clear, and somewhat stringent  boundaries, and yet it was never intended to be a closed community. Anyone could become a part of Israel if they willingly took on the moral commitments that marked it's boundaries.

That is something I wish was more deeply appreciated in the  church.  To recast the statement by the college president, the church is supposed to be a voluntary, moral community, which by definition requires boundaries. Believers should joyfully say, “I willingly place myself under the authority of this community if I’m going to be part of it, and furthermore I’m willing to relinquish my individual rights out of a shared commitment to what’s good for the community.

Too many people are doing what can be described as cohabiting with the church, like a couple who enjoy each other but are unwilling to make any real moral obligation to one another. So long as the church is meeting their needs, and making them feel good all is well but there is no intention of submitting personal interests to the needs of the community, and no community obligation to care for the individual.

God's expectation of his people has always been holyness.

And holyness looks a lot like accepting a voluntary but not arbitrary set of moral boundaries, in concert with a community equally committed to the same moral standards.

This is why church membership, which I have heard maligned a time or two recently matters, churches are extensions of the ultimate covenental community. To be part of the covenant without a commitment to it's local extension is contradictory, and to be part of the community without a genuine recognition of mutual obligation is absurd.

The church needs to have strikingly clear, and somewhat stringent moral boundaries, and yet the church is supposed to be the most accessible community on earth, if one is willing to submit to the standards.