The Responsibilities of Churchmanship
January 11, 1970 = Ordination and Installation
II Corinthians 5:16-20

The trouble with this sermon is that there is an assumption in the title that
few people accept. "The Responsibilities of Churchmanship": it would be totally
naive to begin, herewith, a catalog of those duties and responsibilities when, in
fact, a lot of people, if not the majority, simply don't accept the proposition that
belonging to the church has anything whatever to do with duties and responsibilities.

That statement is so fundamentally and frustratingly true that it requires a
minimum of documentation. If you have ever tried to recruit workers for any project
in this congregation, you know it is true. The Church is simply not included in
that list of personal priorities which all of us have. In fact, the Church is the
only organization in society in which it is possible to hold membership and contribute
nothing for its support, attend none of its meetings and participate in none of its .
activities.

But rather than using our time this morning describing the obvious, I would have
us think about how this has happened. How has an institution, founded on the prin-
ciples of one who said "take up your cross and follow", come to be so totally and
completely undisciplined?

I think the reasons are two. The first is that Protestantism has always over-
reacted to a type of churchly authority that disappeared in the 16th century. The
Protestant Reformation, at least in part, was a grassroots rebellion against a very
tight, authoritarian system of church government. In the middle ages the church
was totally dominated by its clergy. People obeyed. People did what their priests
told them to do at the threat of excommunication and eternal damation. The Reform—
ation changed that. Individual freedom became the by-word. The priesthood of all
believers its theological base. People were personally responsible for their
faith. Protestantism, and particularly Presbyterianism, still lives by that under-
standing. But men being men, we chose to accent, the freedom inherent in that
understanding and to ignore the equally important responsibility. Too frequently
the result is a churchmanship completely without meaning. Or to bring it closer to

itl
home ~ local congregations that number people on their rolls who have not been seen
for lo, these many yearse

The other reason is cultural. We are part of a national mentality that regards
individual freedom very highly. As a people we have fought and died, and continue to
do so when we are convinced that we are doing battle for freedom. But the other
side of our Lee for freedom is a dislike of discipline. Wallace Fisher has noted
that the American "questions any authority which limits his freedom unless he oan
see that it benefits him directly. The Americon— individualistic, idealistic,
experimental, pragmatic, inventive - reacts immediately to authority: ‘0 yeah! Who
says so?" [P.37-38 Preface to Parish Renewal] de Tocqueville, 2 sympathetic
European, long ago pin pointed this as a dangerous failure in the American character.
W. T. Brogan found the same to be true in the 1950's. [The American Character ]

We love freedom: but we don't always willingly sdtant the responsibilities that
accompany our freedom — and upon which our freedom depends.

Iive only been a resident of Lafayette for three and one half years, but in |
that relatively brief time I have perceived that the primary political motivator
hore is foar and distrust and dislike for the authority of the federal government.
We avo apparently obsessed with the imagined threat of federal authority: content
+o mouth platitudes about individual freedom, and initiative, while doing nothing to
remedy those conditions which mst be improved, such as urban renewal, housing and
public health. It is, of course, a noble and creative thing to "do it alone": to
exercise one's individual freedom in ways that pliminate the need for big govern=
ment's infringements upon our common life. But it is something else to talk about
it and then do nothing: to talk incessantly of freedom and never get around to
exercising the responsibilities that are part of our freedom.

In any case, these two, our Reformation distrust of ecclesiastical authority,
and our cultural heritage of individual liberty without individual responsibility,
work together to create a debilitating, frustrating impasse ‘within the Church of
Jesus Christ. And until we work this thing out: until we come +o some common

understanding of church membership as a combination of freedom withing the grace

—3—
of God, and responsibility for the mission of the church the problem is not likely

to go away.

Onething is clear. The New Testament portrays the church intterms of both
privilege and duty: grace and discipline: faith and action. The early chebshauts
knew nothing of an institution that made no demands. To belong, to them, meant to
be a part of a tightly knit commmion of people who knew themselves called to be in
mission. There was no other reason for their corporate existence.

In our New Testament lesson this morning Paul penned perhaps one of his more
important paragraphs. It is significant that the letters to the Corinthians were
written to a group of people who wcre having some rather severe internal pactlens
precisely at this point of freedom and responsibility. |

In ae Christ, Paul said, a man becomes a new creation. The newness ~ the
new being - is a state of reconciliation between God and'man. Before, men rere
separated from God by reason of their own will, therr-ego, their self-centeredness.
Paul called it Sin. All men are caught in it ~- living their lives out of haxmony
St the che: whe crested. then. But Jewug Chote’ changes that, fe teneting in Muar
by willfully laying down the past, by living in dependence on his forgiveness and
grace ~ a man becomes something entirely new: life is lived in harmony with God:
God and man are at one. That is the reconciliation affected by Jesus Christ. Time
has not diaciees that. It is still the good news: it is still the power at work
on the Church and we must never forget it.

But Paul didn't stopthere. "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled
us to himself - - and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." The key word is
reconciliation: the bringing together of those who are separated: the healing of
the breach. And here Paul clearly is saying that Christ did it ~ and because of
that this reconciling activity is what the Church of Jesus Christ is all about. }
That's what the Church is: ‘the community of those individuals who have experienced
their at-oneness with God: and who are experiencing their at-oneness with each
other; and who are totally devoted to sharing that miracle by working for reconcili- ~~.

ation across all the barriers which separate men from other men.

~d=

That adds up to freedom - and responsibility: that adds up to a burdan placed
on the shoulders of anyone who dares to be a part of this ‘blessed communi ty.
It adds up to quite a contrast to the church as we know it.

I think we can be helped as we consider the responsibilities of belonging to
this congregation in this place if we follow the logic of Martin Marty, a Lutheran
Church Historian and Theologian. Part of our problem, Marty maintains, [Second
Chance forAmerican Protestantism] is in the basic structure of the Church - the
congregation - or parish. The Church as a parish is a concept that grew out of
fourth century England. A parish was basically a unit of geography. Since, at
that time belonging to a church was not a matter of choice or personal preference,
everyone who lived in a given geographical place was part of the parish. “Thus the
Church became the spiritual, and many time political and economic focal point of
life for people who lived and worked together and who sooner or later were related
to each other,

In early America the parish or congregational unit functioned very well, tailor=
made for a rural, small town civilization. The problem is that the style has not
changed, but everything else has. There is no such thing in Protestantism as a
parish: that is to say, geographical proximity has very little to do with your
choice of church, or who your fellow members happen to be. In addition the congre~
gational unit which evolved in a stable society_mow has to deal with instability
and fluidity. Members ure here today and gone tomorrow. People can join, attend,
move away, without the mejority of other members ever being aware of their existence.

That alone has tremendous implications if we are going to take seriously the
concept of reconciliation. For it is a little difficult to be reconciled to someone
you've never seen, and it is very difficult to get excited about the Church's
mission of reconciliation in a community you will soon be leaving. At best the
Church becomes the place to go for certain services - such as education for the
children and stimulating sermons.

Because of this cultural enigma there are those who have rejected the whole

concept of the church as a congregational unit in favor of house churches; small

-5-
intimate groups that convene regularly for study, prayer and fellowship. In fact
there are Sitpieattle voices saying that this will be the form of the Church in the
future: that impersonal congregations with unused buildings are obsolete and will
gradually fade aways

That may be. But I'm not ready to give up yet. Because I see the congregational
unit's greatest weakness as its greatest challenge, I see in the problems of the
Parish a reflection of the problems of life in general, and therefore an opportunity
for Christian people to engage in the very real work of reconciliation, in a way
not afforded by the house church. ‘

It will start when we understand parish not as a place but a bond Between people.
It will start when we stop defining church as that building on the corner of Vinton
and 29th streets, and begin to think in terms of those people with whom we are
intimately involved in Jesus Christ. The hope of the parish is that you and I will
begin to think in terms of relationships and reconciliation.

Thet, of course, is quite a bit to ask: and if we are serious about it we
must be prepared to confront opposition, an opposition that runs very deeply. If
we are not serious about it, we have very little reason to maintain the facade of
churchmanship.

It will involve some simple, personal little things, such as taking the time
to know saek other, caring for and listening to each other, praying with and for
each other. It will involve integrity when we celebrate the sacraments -— when, for
instance, we say in Baptism that we accept the responsibility for the Christian
nurture of an infant born to one of us.

It will mean some major changes too: such as acting on our responsibilities
as agents of reconciliation — getting involved individually and corporately in all
those areas where men are alienated from each other.

That, I believe, is the hope of the Church. But it will never become a reality
until a lot of individuals like you and me decide that we are weary of playing
religious games ~ and sre ready now to shoulder the responsibilities of churchmanship.
No one can force you — all that can be done is the testimony delivered again and

Beal
Sat gone wom ting ke ter Tou only go ston oon in 2, so ena

* ‘
e eer os ‘ “
ligt . a i

“Our father, stir up our reluctant commitment. Give us the courage to begin a

year with s new commitment to your church, _Miacugt, Tein Ones ou Tent :
axe