“The Un-Churchable”

St. Patrick’s ministry was considered an outreach to “barbarians” by the Roman Church leaders of his time. To be worthy of receiving the Christian faith, a people first had to be considered civilized to some degree, and upon receiving the faith, they had to be willing to accept “the Roman way” (Hunter, The Celtic Way, p. 17).

The ability to be welcomed into the Kingdom was expected only of the non-barbarians of the world. The Irish who were believed to be uncivilized by the Roman wing of Christianity were considered, to coin a phrase, “Un-Christianable.”

Most established denominations come from Roman or European roots, and most have trouble reaching today’s barbarians. There continues to be a lack of willingness to welcome those who are considered uncivilized and not willing to take on “the Way of the Church.” To be sure, there are some denominations who boast that they are different, and provide a home to those who have no church that will accept them, but in my opinion, that is more lip-service than reality.

Most denominations have trouble welcoming homosexuals (who would come to Church with their ‘mates’), prostitutes (who have no plans of quitting their night job), couples who live together (and have no plans to get married), and, let’s not forget those who come for no other reason than they like the practical teaching of Christianity (but have no plans to “join” the Church).

There are many “barbarians” in our world today, who are not civilized enough, nor are they willing to become “Denominationized” and make themselves able to fit in with the predictable behavior of those to whom the Church finds easiest to minister.

So what to do?

Recognizing that we are all “barbarians” is probably a good beginning (s. Romans 3:23). Secondly, the Church would do well to remember who Jesus spent much of his time with-the twelve not-good-enough’s that no other rabbi would take the time to teach (disciples), and people whom very few, in his time, would even consider inviting to worship (barbarians).

“While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the ‘sinners’ and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?’ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners’” (Mark 2:15-17 NIV).

Denominational leaders are expected to spend the majority of their time with the “church folk”, as if he or she is the matradee of the civilized and churchized, while the barbarians are ostracized until they are ready to be assimilated into “the Denomination way”, like good little boys and girls.

I know my words may come across as a bit negative, and my intention is not to offend the establishment, but to bring recognition to the truth that many Christians could stand to hear God’s warning and promise in Ezekiel 34:4: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally” (NIV).

As George Hunter says so clearly, “…as in the case of the ancient Roman wing of the Church, denominations are still substantially in the hands of the less apostolic wing of the Church, which works overtime to gain and retain institutional control; which assumes it knows best; and which works persistently to impose Roman, European, or other culturally alien forms upon the more indigenous and growing movements within the denomination. This pathology is observed today, for example, in most of the denominations in the United States that were ‘imported from Europe’” (pp. 95-96).

In His dust,

Johnny

Works Cited:

George G. Hunter III The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West… Again (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000).

 

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

10 Comments to “The Un-Churchable”

1. Jonathan, I like this post. I do believe strongly that we need with the Church a sense of the Spirit of the Early Irish Christians. Patrick and his cohorts ranged the country reaching out to barbarians who became the backbone of the Christian Faith.

   Today we need to be inclusive in welcoming all into our services to worship God. Homosexuals, prostitutes, addicts, socialists, capitalists , sinners of all varieties ( and this includes ourselves) worshiping God and seeking His direction.

   Yes while the practices of some of those attending such an inclusive fellowsihip may be sinful the goal is to have God’s Love reach them and teach them and change them into Images of Christ.

   So let’s truly open our doors to the barbarians.

   John S
John Stephenson on August 27th, 2010

2. Very good point, with a couple caveats.

   The Church has a responsibility to welcome and love all people, even the un-churchable. Especially the un-churchable. We are to love and invite sinners into our community. We are not to condone the sin though.

   Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, but after Jesus ate with Zacchaeus, the tax collector gave back four times as much as he had cheated out of people. There was love for the person that resulted in repentance from the sin.

   The Church needs to do that. We need to show people God’s love in such a way that in response the un-churchable person wants to repent of their action in demonstration of their love for God.

   I agree that we tend to get those two backwards. Our natural inclination is to expect people to repent so we can love them, and that is just plain not Biblical. However, we have to make sure that we welcome and love people in such a way that repentance results. If we are loving each other the way Christ loved sinner, repentance will result. If there is no repentance, we may be welcoming, but we are not demonstrating God’s love.

   Josh G.
Josh Garrington on August 27th, 2010

3. This conversation begins to become a little accdemic when you ask ‘would these people want to come to church?’ Yes, they want to come to church, but only to a church that accepts them as they are, for who they are.

   The homosexual will only want to come to church if the church will fully accept their partners (not ‘mates’!!!!) etc. If the church is not accepting of all people, then this whole argument is academic and highly offensive.

   It is not our job to tell people what their specific sins are. That is the job of the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit never tells a homosexual person that they are living in sin and they should divorce their partner that they may have been with for many years, then who are we to argue with God? Do we really think we are that superior to God?

   There are those who will tell me that they have welcomed homosexuals into their congregations and seen them ‘converted’. I would say (from vast experience and much research) that is complete garbage. There is no evidence of that ever having happened anywhere, ever. What there is evidence of is people becoming psychologically disturbed, lying just to fit in, engaging in very dangerous underground behaviour in order to maintain a facade that they think they should be showing etc.

   I know that a lot of the established churches will never change their views, and at most will only move towards this still highly offensive attitude that is presented in this post and the first two responses. The problem is, the church (and those in it) are all too bent on understanding theology to recognise reality. No different to the Pharasees and Saduccees of Jesus and Paul’s day. Reality completely contradicts the established theology.

   There are churches that are completely accepting however. Perhaps we should leave the evangelism to these people (even though most would not consider such denominations as part of the Christian Church). Churches such as the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), the Uniting Church, and a large part of the Church of England (to name a few of the bigger ones). If we can’t evangelise the church, let those that can, do.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on August 27th, 2010

4. I just have a concern here. I hear what you’re saying, and I agree to a certain extent. We are all sinners and it is while we’re still sinners that Christ died for us all… I get that, and the resultant expectation that the church would therefore be an inclusive fellowship of all types of sinners.

   However, for too long the church has labelled “homosexuality” with the badge of sinner. Here in this particular post they have been labelled as “barbarian”. I know that this label has suitably been applied to all people because we’re all “barbarians/sinners”, however I actually think that if the church wants to be inclusive it needs to swallow it’s own pride for a moment and stop being so judgemental.

   To label homosexuality as “sinful” and then expect a homosexual to feel included, no matter how much we pour the love of God in their direction, is actually misguided. The problem is that homosexuals don’t view their sexual orientation as a “thing they do” but rather as “who they are”. When the church tries to distinguish the two (i.e. love the sinner, hate the sin) the homosexual does not “hear” that message. What they do hear is “hate the sinner” because what we see as an “act” they see as their very “self”. In this specific instance it’s equated with “hate the homosexual”. As a result, Jonathan, I know you’re trying to encourage us to be “inclusive” of all people (including homosexuals) for which I commend and support you, but I suspect that in doing so you’ve actually been “exclusive” at this very point.

   As difficult as this is, and as much as a culture shift that it is, we as the church need to allow the jury to remain out with regards to whether homosexuality is, in fact, sinful. In fact, we should get out of the court room all together (i.e. stop being judgmental!). We will NEVER reach homosexual people with the inclusive love of God for as long as we label “who they are” as “sinners”. As much as we want to rationalise our position at this particular point with whatever theological or Biblical justification we want, if we continue to try and wrestle with this issue from our perspective without taking into account the perspective of the other, without love, then we’re just a clanging cymbal.

   Adam
Adam Couchman on August 27th, 2010

5. Well said Jonathan!

   It is true we are all ‘barbarians’. Many churches put themselves in the ‘perfect box’. We all have to remember what happened when Jesus said ‘those without sin throw the first stone’.

   Thank you for the article.

   Garciela
Graciela on August 29th, 2010

6. I agree that the message of Christ’s love is all-inclusive, but the message of repentance equally so. Thanks Josh G for stating we need to get the order right.

   Some thoughts and questions I have from the article and the discussion:

   Speaking as a ‘barbarian’ in constant need of God’s grace, I have not always lived a holy life - but there is an impetus towards seeking holiness (both internally and from correction by the church).

   I’m just wondering how we reconcile our holiness ideals with members of our church openly living a life contrary to holiness, with no intention of pursuing it?

   Do we, as Graeme suggests, leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict?

   Where does this leave the prophets of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, and leaders of the early church in rebuking unrighteous actions and calling people to repentance?

   Do the ‘correcting functions’ of the church still stand(e.g. 2 Tim 4:1-3; 1 Cor 5:11-13), or are they in need of re-evaluation?

   (Before you rip me to shreds - Please note that these are genuine questions I have, not rhetorical devices for stating my opinion)

   Cara B
Cara on August 30th, 2010

7. Hi all,

   The issue raised here by Jonathan is a valid and timely one. What does indigenous church look like, and to what extent do cultural norms dictate the nature of church, and the content (the message) proclaimed by the church.

   The point you raised about ‘imposing culturally alien’ forms of church upon indigenous churches (native to a given nation) is really an issue of missiology. What does a native church look like in its given context? How does evangelism take place? You’re certainly correct in stating that it should not be replaced through over-riding the organic nature of the indigenous church with seemingly ‘traditional’ or ‘western’ norms and structures.

   The planting, or growing, of indigenous churches (and in my context, that would be inside of a prison!) must be built upon the principle’s outlined throughout the Scriptures. Dare I say, that should be the situation for any church / denomination

   I worry when people reject a church or denomination as “alien” or “out of touch”, and simultaneously reject the Scriptures which the denomination is seeking to be faithful too. We don’t like certain aspect of how church is ‘done’, so the whole thing is rejected. I worry even more so when the same is said of ‘difficult’ verses in the Scripture - ones which Cara has (for example) raised.

   To say that we love all people unconditionally is incredibly difficult. No matter how “holy” or “Christ-like” we become, we still end up seeing people through our own eyes, making continuous judgments about how much grace we are we willing to extend to a person. We have to always recognize our brokeness, our limitations, and defer to the authority of the Scripture.

   How many times do we forgive - infinite. How many times do we preach repentence - unending. But should we water down the message of the radical gospel of Jesus Christ and the continued establishment of the kingdom of God, because we are afraid of it being offensive? mē genoito! By no means! It is supposed to be offensive, confrontational and demanding!

   How can we truly love the sinner if we compromise on sin ? In what way is that loving or beneficial to any-one? How does that fulfill the mandate of growing disciples - a people fit for, and subjects of, the kingdom of God?

   God bless you,

   Jesse
Jesse on September 1st, 2010

8. I noticed that Joe Noland has just posted a relevant blogpost related to The Salvation Army and sexuality that is worth a read:

   I’ve added a few thoughts of my own in response:

   http://joenoland.blogspot.com/2010/09/love-takes-courage.html

   Thanks for bringing this to the fore, Joe.

   I think this is about the best SA positional statement I’ve seen covering the area of sexuality, and have been thinking for some time that we need to be clearer, consistent and more communicative- internationally - where we stand on this. This is true both for TSA as a worshipping community & social services agency, as well as for the information of broader society & culture who we aim to love and serve in the name of Jesus.

   This is most important considering the (I think largely undeserved) reputation that has developed for many of our LGBT brothers and sisters that The Salvation Army is homophobic or discriminatory in its outlook and practices.

   This seems to have had its genesis in particular & specific sets of circumstances in the US related to hiring practices, so through various blogs, forums, news pieces etc the perception has become we have an “anti-gay stance”.

   Yet, with little or no official response from the Army to respond to or correct that perception our silence may well speak volumes to the LGBT community.

   We began as a Movement which reached out to the marginalised with love. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves of that, so thank you, Joe for the insightful post.

   J Laird
Johnny Laird on September 7th, 2010

9. I’ve just read Joe’s blogspot. Whilst it is the best I’ve seen in TSA, I still don’t believe that the LGBT community at large would feel comfortable worshiping or working in TSA.

   Australia East has a very similar positional statement (my mother helped draft it), however, the outworking of it in practice is still discriminatory. Staff who work in rehab centres are not allowed to encourage LGBT clients in their relationships. LGBT staff are not allowed to openly talk about their own relationships. LGBT persons in relationships can’t get ‘marriage’ counselling from TSA to help them get over problems and stay together.

   What both these positional statements fail to recognise is that many same-sex relationships are beautiful, God-honouring, monogomous relationships. It still clings to a traditional interpretation of scripture that has been continually challenged with more modern schollarship, better understanding of ancient language and culture, and a better understanding of reality and what homosexuality is.

   This group will still be unchurchable by TSA until TSA radically re-evaluates it’s theology.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme Randall
Graeme Randall on September 8th, 2010

10. I’m not close enough to the ground to be able to comment on Australia East, or any other Territory’s hiring policies.

    However, I’m not sure agree entirely with your last phrase “This group will still be unchurchable by TSA until TSA radically re-evaluates it’s theology”

    Right off the bat, it’s important that each and every person is loved where they are, as they are - and not necessary in the context of a “group”.

    Then - for those who consider ourselves to be part of TSA - I guess we have to be aware that we ARE the Movement. We ARE The Salvation Army, so individually we have a responsibility to love and to serve. It’s not going to be an exclusively top-down thing.

    So, can we love our LGBT brothers and sisters? Can we serve them, walk with them, share Scripture together…now, today?

    Then,although the picture you paint appears bleak it also has to be acknowledged that TSA does have gay employees and gay men and women who are already part of our Worshipping Communities.

    Grace & peace

    Johnny L.
Johnny Laird on September 9th, 2010

Leave a comment