One of the things I have heard quite often over the past 31 years I have been in parish ministry, is that congregations are supposed to be places where everyone loves each other. Until very recently I have agreed with that; I have pictured that as an ideal toward which we all ought to work. These days I am not so sure that this is the goal of Christian community in general, or of congregations specifically, or rather, it is the goal only if we are very careful about just exactly how we define and understand that very tricky word “love.”
If by love we mean a community in which everyone gets along, everyone really enjoys everyone else, and people don't fight, then I am not so sure that this is a good goal. Such a goal would require a congregation to become spiritually, temperamentally, and probably socially and politically homogenous. Very likely it would mean that such a congregation would be shaped in the image of its strongest leader, probably the pastor, but possibly some longtime member who has come to be the real center of authority. That just doesn't sound good to me at all; indeed, it sounds rather totalitarian. If, most simply put, love means that everyone is supposed to feel “warm and fuzzy” about everyone else all the time, then no thanks, that is too much pressure.
I want a church in which people can fight and fight hard, some of the time, even though that is often painful. But the fighting must be carried on in the context of a common commitment to a shared ministry and a similar commitment to each other. Fighting must be fair and it must be respectful of all the parties involved, and there must be ways to resolve disputes that are less about winning and losing, and more about discovering the right direction to travel together.
There must be something else as well; the members of congregations need to create space for everyone. This doesn't mean there are no rules, because in fact, there have to be rules, but the rules need to be designed in such a manner as provide enough support, enough welcome, enough emotional space for everyone.
The Eucharist is a model of this. Not everyone likes the liturgy; parts of it I don't like, frankly, but we are all welcome to partake because there is spiritual room for everyone. You don't have to “love” every single prayer, every single theological perspective included in the Eucharist in order to be welcome to receive. Similarly, people don't generally choose who they will end up next to as they receive, but that doesn't matter, there is room for everyone; you don't have to plan to be best friends with the folks you kneel next to, you simply have to realize they belong at that altar every bit as much as anyone else. And, as I ponder it, if that is what love means, then absolutely, I want a church where we all love each other.
Bill,
I think some people believe fighting means an absence of love, and in a loving relationship there would be no fighting. But sometimes the lack of conflict really means one or both parties do not care enough about the person/issue to expend energy in conflict.
And certainly, the stories in the Bible seem to support the idea that conflict isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The early church had plenty of conflict, but we also see the ways in which they resolve the conflict. And I like that Jesus seemed to carefully balance caring for people’s needs and confronting them about the things they needed to change.
Well said Bill … I think the disagreements in church families are often moments of growth if most of the people see it in light of God’s ministry. If we will only remember that it is GOD’S ministry, we are simply the hands and feet in whatever place we find ourselves.