The value of relationship
I value relationships, period. This is specifically about why I think Christians should value them
John Armstrong’s latest blog entry is about the value of relationship. In the entry before that he shares a choice which to me implicitly highlights the importance of relationship. He mentions taking time to write to one prisoner even though the question arose in his mind: “Why am I doing this when there are so many more important things to be done today that could reach hundreds more people?”
I think a follower of Jesus who chooses to spend time on/with one person is on safe ground because Jesus often did that, according to the gospels. I might be wrong but I think Jesus made that choice because when you do something one-on-one for/with a person you are entering into some sort of relationship with them. He evidently believed that adds value which can’t be added any other way.
According to the Bible Paul wrote a number of letters to groups of people far away. Mass communication from an almost-stranger you have no personal contact with is not very relational. If Paul had been content with this I would conclude he didn’t value relationships very highly. However, he wasn’t at all content. He longed to visit the people he wrote to. When I read everything in Paul’s letters (not just the parts about how to be a good Christian) Paul comes across to me as very relational. Which surprised me at first, but maybe it shouldn’t have, because maybe that was one reason why Jesus chose him to be so influential in the early church.
The conservative evangelical Christian church bases their belief system around “a personal relationship with Jesus”. This would seem to imply that they understand the value of relationship. However, I don’t think they do because they so often embrace methods which are not relational. Huge churches and Christian radio and TV (and non-interactive use of the Internet) undermine the relational context in which all ‘church’ used to happen. I think there is a huge cost to that which the church has not fully understood.
The content of their message is “Nothing is as important as your relationship with Jesus” while the method implies “Relationship with other people is not important”. I find this mixed message profoundly disturbing. Biblically speaking, it is a mixed message because the Bible doesn’t support a separation between relationship with God and relationships with other people. According to the gospels Jesus said “love God” and “love your neighbor” are “like”. In 1 John, the author wrote that someone who hates his brother cannot love God. Throughout the Old Testament loving God is inextricably linked with being kind to people in need.
One particularly bad idea, I think, is the recent trend towards satellite church service which show part or all of the service from the original location on a big video screen. When I first heard about this it felt wrong to me and now I understand why. It’s so anti-relationship to prefer a person on a screen to someone you can actually talk to. I see why church attenders might prefer a more proficient speaker on a screen to a less proficient one in person. My guess is that these are the people who’d never talk to the speaker even if he or she were there in person. What mystifies me is why church leaderships cater to this, in effect implying ‘relationship with the speaker has no value, so he (or she) may as well just be a face on a screen’. What happened to the Biblical concept of people sharing their lives with one another?
As I think about why I left church, the lack of relational value it had for me was a primary reason. There were little to no relational opportunities afforded me by a worship service. Except the possibility of improving my relationship with God/Jesus. But a few years ago I decided the only doable way for me to pursue that relationship is indirectly (through the way I live my life and my relationships with other people). Attending a service offered so few indirect opportunities that that decision meant it wasn’t worth my while going anymore.
I would like to see the church return to methods which are more inherently relational, thereby restoring the emphasis on relationship which I find in the Bible from beginning to end.
Just testing the comment edit plugin…don’t mind me.
Testing again…got it!
Great post Helen, and you’re absolutely right.
I left a mega church. I didn’t have trouble finding relationships there – but what I learned was the hard reality that people believe the CHURCH is more important than relationships.
Have you read what Bob Hyatt has written about video venues (i.e. satellite churches)? If not, he has some interesting things to say.
Church has become a spectator sport instead of a relationship. Like you said.
Thanks for your comment, Lily. I hadn’t seen Bob Hyatt’s comments on video venues. I’ll go find those and read them.
If people want their church service to be a show that’s ok with me as long as everyone is honest that that’s what it is. And people who don’t like that show can go see a different one or stay home. What I don’t like is when it’s advertised as something other than it really is. And then people are told “You should attend church because Hebrews says not to forsake assembling together”, rather than “Come see our show if you like. If you don’t want to, fine!” (And if they admitted it was a show they could charge a mandatory admission fee to cover their costs)
Justin, thanks for making ‘edit comments’ work!
I totally agree with your comment, Helen. I don’t like the argument about not forsaking meeting together. I doubt a 2000 person church and a completely non-participatory (well, other than the singing) “show” was what the author of Hebrews had in mind.
What part of 2000 people each for 6 services (my experience) fosters “relationships”? That’s just ridiculous, if you ask me, because Jesus said “two or more” is good enough. Like you said, it’s fine if people want to attend a production, but it’s not “church”, as I see it. It’s mass teaching, which Jesus DID do, but it’s not what the disciples called “church”. I don’t think.
But hey, you and I are having “church” right now
, so it’s all good.
Lily, yes, I’m sure the author of Hebrews meant more than being in the same room as other people watching the same show.
And I’m happy to count this as ‘church’ – sounds great to me!
Helen,
I just found your blog, and I love it. It is refreshingly honest. I’m looking for to exploring it some more.
I ministered in churches for nearly 2 decades, and now our family goes to Target and other places as well on Sunday morning.
Blessings,
Kevin
Thanks Kevin!
I agree with Lily – we are having church right here.
When Casper and I visited churches this past summer he kept asking me
“Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?”
Thanks Jim. I like Matt Casper’s question.
[...] JR Woodward has some good posts: check this and this and this. Links 1. Sen. Boxer asked what has to be the poorest-worded question one can imagine, and now it has opened up a spat about “who pays?” Boxer wanted to get at the impact of the Bush Cabinet’s decisions — that Americans are dying. Her question gives the impression that because Rice doesn’t have children, and because she (Boxer) doesn’t have children eligible for service, that they don’t see the impact of the Bush Cabinet’s decisions personally — and that is not the issue at all. Leaders in countries should not be swayed by personal family implications for public policy — though we know that many leaders got their kids out of Vietnam service. Boxer asked a bad question; the big issue got lost in the politically-charged answers. 2. A report that humans may have lived in Minnesota up to 15,000 years ago; among the remains, possibly a stone in the shape of a hockey stick with the smell of Lutefisk. 3. Good and good. 4. Perhaps we need to think of sending TSK next year to Vegas to get an emerging church report on technological innovations. 5. Helen Mildenhall’s post about the value of relationships. 6. Dang, someone’s got a “theology of profanity”: Seeker (I don’t like those anonyms). 7. The Radical Pastor can paint, too. No wonder he’s been slow on posting. 8. Scary. 9. Eschatologian alert: here and here. 10. Do you know the Gospels? Trevin’s test. 11. Kris and I occasionally go through the blog list to see if our list is outdated; I was about to think Mark Galli was done blogging when he up and posted two great ones. Good to hear from you again Mark. His new book sounds wonderful. 12. Have you got sassy kids? Know someone who does? 13. Sad-day, Sad-day for California Dreamin’. Sports Bears: What can I say? I predicted 14 wins this year, and they won 13. I didn’t foresee beating the Seahawks, but I’m sure glad the Bears won last Sunday. The Bears are about as good as the Saints; if they play well, they can win. Good grief, who would have predicted the Bears had a chance to get to the Super Bowl? Well, friends, they are on the cusp of getting there. I remember Super Bowl I — and Bart Starr still has the great name in the history of football (American style, not soccer).In 25 years, our children or children’s children will be talking about the “Steroid Years” of professional sports, and let’s hope the sportwriters use their moral sense as we ride through these years. [...]
I think that there are several parts of “church” and that some of them can be done in large settings. Teaching can be done in large setting, some types of worship can be done in large settings. But relationship has to have a context outside of large settings. My concern with comments like Kevin’s is that the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. If you feel like you are not getting your relational parts of church in your church then address that need. But I don’t see how you can just say, well I didn’t get it so I will just go to Target instead. There is certainly not a relationship that is being built at Target. “Church” has some ands to it. It is Christ and relationship, Teaching and worship and interaction. They don’t necessarily have to be done all at the same time but if we choose just one part then we really are missing out on what it means to be part of the church.
Thanks for your comment, Adam. I agree that Target also isn’t very relational.
Perhaps Kevin, like me, has a number of reasons why he goes to Target or other places on Sunday mornings instead of church.
Yes I agree with you Helen, relational is something I think we need a relational life with Jesus and each other – not least as we are often asked to be Jesus feet, hands, smile, love, support to each other…
I suppose one of the issues is that church should not be a Sunday morning only activity and if it is then people start to weigh trips to Target with sitting in a large room with people that I don’t really know listening to something talk about something that may or may not impact my life.
So Target isn’t relational, but many churches that only exist for Sunday morning lose out to shopping or sports because they don’t move people into relationship, service, learning, etc. during the week.
Thanks Paul!
Adam – exactly.
[...] posted the value of relationship on there (which I first posted on here a couple of weeks ago). I figured I’d go with [...]
Helen,
Here, here. I just posted on a similar topic at my blog. The Trinity is the model for our human relationships, particularly those in the context of Christian community. The God-head is an intimate and whole relationship. The members of which enjoy an intimacy and closeness we only glimpse on our journey here. Thanks for tackling this topic in an honest and meaningful way.
Eli
Thanks Eli.
[...] posted this on my personal blog a couple of weeks ago (and am posting it on CatE today). In reposting it here I realize I might be [...]