The value of relationship
30 Jan 2007
I 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 ‘preaching to the choir’ somewhat, since some of you are already exploring different ways of ‘doing church’ that are more relational than what I’ve been used to.
I value relationships, period. This is specifically about why I think Christians should value them
John Armstrong recently wrote 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 Jesusâ€. 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 importantâ€. 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 “likeâ€. 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.
Tagged: friendship, Relationship
16 comments
Trackback
Comment by Paul
1.24 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Helen, I agree with you on the importance of being relational – infact i’d just like to say how much i have enjoyed getting to know you through the medium of blogs and email :)
I know where you are coming from on the communication methods of some churches which may strike you as impersonal but then again people seem to have relationships with their tvs and radios, or at least the content of them [i think i read recently in an N T Wright article about how many new baby presents a soap gets when one of its characters has a baby for instance] – so maybe what is impersonal to you is very personal to others…
I guess the same is true for me when i think about church – i know some people quite well but that is because i have chosen to get involved and have joined a small group and serve on a team once a month – church doesn’t give me relationships on a plate but by participating with people, by sharing space, life, prayer, service, action, fun i am geting to know folk and building relationships…
Maybe then we have some degree of choice about how we develop relationships at church and the Q becomes not so much the space where people gather but the opportunities to interact with each other?
Where i think we can struggle is when it becomes all task focussed and we only meet to do God things – something that i have found i can start to break down my risking inviting people round for dinner and cracking open a bottle of wine or two :)
Anywho in terms of the Q you raise – what methods would you like to see in church for building relationships?
Comment by steven hamilton
2.13 pm on 30 Jan 2007
your friend John Armstrong’s posts made me think of henri nouwen, and how when he chose to go and care for those who could not care for themselves, many lamented this great writer and communicator would be lost…and yet in it i think he was found.
as to methods and being relational, i had to laugh to myself. really as created beings, we humans have a variety of likes and dis-likes, and ways to do things. i think much of the ‘church’ thinks it is being relational in much of what it does…to me the question is more incarnational than immediately relational: how do you be relational with those around you in the place where you are? once you get through the incarnational piece, then you can better understand how to relate to the people in a place…
Comment by dorsey marshall
2.37 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Good post. I just posted an article that submits that our relationality, not our loyalty to an institution,” is the very thing that bears witness to Christ in us.
I was in a discussion recently in which we took our periodic stab at the faith/works conundrum. One of the very interesting things that came from the conversation was the way in which relational dynamics affect motivation. Having grown up in evangelicalism, the line between being good as a ticket to heaven and doing good out of love for Christ and one another was often blurry. But we noted that Jesus told His disciples, “I’m no longer calling you servants… No, I’ve named you friends because I’ve let you in on everything I’ve heard from the Father.” (John 15:15).
I don’t know about you, but I do good to my friends with an entirely different motivation than I do for my customers, or strangers. The idea of transactional works is out the window when you’re doing for a friend. I agree with you, Helen, that our collective activity must reflect that sort of relationship.
Comment by Helen
5.37 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Paul (1) wrote: Helen, I agree with you on the importance of being relational – infact i’d just like to say how much i have enjoyed getting to know you through the medium of blogs and email :)
Likewise!
I know where you are coming from on the communication methods of some churches which may strike you as impersonal but then again people seem to have relationships with their tvs and radios, or at least the content of them [i think i read recently in an N T Wright article about how many new baby presents a soap gets when one of its characters has a baby for instance] – so maybe what is impersonal to you is very personal to others…
I suppose…but speaking for myself, I want to live in the real world. It bothers me that I could go to a mega-church and know the preaching pastor’s voice well after a while, and what he likes and dislikes, etc. But it would be as one-way as me liking a TV character out of a sitcom. It would be an unreal relationship because it doesn’t really exist as far as the other person is concerned :(
I guess the same is true for me when i think about church – i know some people quite well but that is because i have chosen to get involved and have joined a small group and serve on a team once a month – church doesn’t give me relationships on a plate but by participating with people, by sharing space, life, prayer, service, action, fun i am geting to know folk and building relationships…
Yes, I think that is a the best way to get to know people – get involved and serve alongside them.
Maybe then we have some degree of choice about how we develop relationships at church and the Q becomes not so much the space where people gather but the opportunities to interact with each other?
Probably – because the way some churches are, only certain people get invited to participate in the fun ministries. And only certain people get invited over for dinner. So the amount of opportunity can vary in a way I think James wouldn’t have liked, because he said don’t play favorites. He based that on money but often in church it is based on other things; yet I still think his advice applies.
Where i think we can struggle is when it becomes all task focussed and we only meet to do God things – something that i have found i can start to break down my risking inviting people round for dinner and cracking open a bottle of wine or two :)
Sounds like a wonderful idea!
Anywho in terms of the Q you raise – what methods would you like to see in church for building relationships?
Well…actually I think Steven nailed it, so read my response to him ;-).
Comment by Helen
5.41 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Steven (2) wrote: your friend John Armstrong’s posts made me think of henri nouwen, and how when he chose to go and care for those who could not care for themselves, many lamented this great writer and communicator would be lost…and yet in it i think he was found.
I have great respect for Henri Nouwen. He was a man who knew how to love (imo).
as to methods and being relational, i had to laugh to myself. really as created beings, we humans have a variety of likes and dis-likes, and ways to do things. i think much of the ‘church’ thinks it is being relational in much of what it does…to me the question is more incarnational than immediately relational: how do you be relational with those around you in the place where you are? once you get through the incarnational piece, then you can better understand how to relate to the people in a place…
I was going to ask you what the big word ‘incarnational’ meant in this context but I think I figured it out ;-).
I think you are saying – it’s people being relational that makes church relational. If they aren’t relational methods aren’t going to make it happen.
And so you said, start being relational with the people you’re around every day. (And if they don’t conveniently share your beliefs or lifestyle, so much the better – you will get good practise at loving people not quite like you!) If we start being relational right now, with those around us, then it will become a habit we take into church with us. And we’ll find our churches becoming more relational.
Am I anywhere close or did I completely misconstrue what you were saying, Steven?
Comment by Helen
5.45 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Dorsey (3) wrote: Good post. I just posted an article that submits that our relationality, not our loyalty to an institution,†is the very thing that bears witness to Christ in us.
Thanks Dorsey – it seems like we think alike on this issue.
I was in a discussion recently in which we took our periodic stab at the faith/works conundrum. One of the very interesting things that came from the conversation was the way in which relational dynamics affect motivation. Having grown up in evangelicalism, the line between being good as a ticket to heaven and doing good out of love for Christ and one another was often blurry. But we noted that Jesus told His disciples, “I’m no longer calling you servants… No, I’ve named you friends because I’ve let you in on everything I’ve heard from the Father.†(John 15:15).
I don’t know about you, but I do good to my friends with an entirely different motivation than I do for my customers, or strangers. The idea of transactional works is out the window when you’re doing for a friend. I agree with you, Helen, that our collective activity must reflect that sort of relationship.
Thanks – that’s very insightful. I think that does get to the core of why people who aren’t Christian often are offended by attempts at evangelizing them. If you said “Did the person who tried to convert you treat you like a friend?” they would probably laugh in your face because that’s so not like how they were treated.
Comment by Helen
5.50 pm on 30 Jan 2007
A p.s. to Paul(1): I forgot to say, in answer to ‘methods’, that some of what churches try seem like good methods. But they can’t work unless people are relational at the events, or whatever. It’s actually worse to go to something intended to be about ‘fellowship’ and then find people aren’t interested in fellowship with ME – or, only on their terms – then not to go at all.
When we go to these ‘fellowship’ things we need to find people like Jesus there or we will leave more lonely, isolated and hurt than we came. OR, better, we need to go and be the person there who is like Jesus. So other people who come are glad they did.
Comment by steven hamilton
6.34 pm on 30 Jan 2007
like a hammer, you nailed me…you did not mis-construe but understood better than my words probably did…thanks helen
Comment by Bryan Riley
7.20 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Wow, your point on satellite churches is so poignant. I had the same gut feeling you did, but couldn’t articulate a reason for it. You’ve nailed it.
Of course, that is the battle with blogging. We spend time here, behind a computer, and not person to person, with eye contact, hugs, body language, and serving. We must ensure that the relationships built don’t end and begin with words on a screen.
I’m reading too many books right now so I can’t remember where I read this (i think i read it), but the author was remarking on the incredible nature of God after the Fall. God asked “where are you?” I don’t think it was like I might ask angrily for my son if he weren’t doing what I had told him to do; instead, it appears God was saying, “Adam, Eve, I miss you and long to be in relationship with you, where are you? Why did you choose a path away from me?”
Comment by Paul
7.34 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Helen (7) do these folk not know about your wine cracking penchant ;)
Comment by Helen
9.32 pm on 30 Jan 2007
Steven (8): like a hammer? OUCH – that sounds painful. I hope it wasn’t! :)
Bryan (9) wrote: Of course, that is the battle with blogging. We spend time here, behind a computer, and not person to person, with eye contact, hugs, body language, and serving. We must ensure that the relationships built don’t end and begin with words on a screen.
I agree that in-person relationships are the best. But I do think long-distance ones can be quite helpful and meaningful. I would put one-way relationships lowest on my list i.e. I watch someone on TV or read their book but there is little possibility of me actually having two-way interaction with them. At least the Internet provides ample two-way communication opportunities.
What bothers me about satellite church is that to me it implies “this is fine; there is nothing wrong with this”. Whereas I think our goal should be that we are together in ways that maximise creating and developing relationships. I.e. the preacher is there, not on a screen!
Paul (10) shhhh or I will reveal all your secrets too! :-)
(Actually, that won’t work since I don’t know any!)
Comment by ZooMuse
9.53 am on 31 Jan 2007
Your excellent comments also underscore the reality that people should not be viewed as having “saved-by dates†hanging over their heads (or stamped on their bums). By this I am referring to the all-too-common evangelical practice of building a “relationship†with someone with the unstated intention/agenda of seeing them “come to Jesus.†In the case that these people do not respond quickly enough (or ever), that “relationship†is dropped and another started. We have the privilege to enter into relationships with people simply because that is in the nature of God and His image in us.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
1.21 pm on 31 Jan 2007
Bravo Helen!
Gereat addition Zoomouse. We’re definately not talking about “Friendship Evangelism” here, but “Friendship”. Our walk with our friends, the love we show them and others, is what I beleive God asks from us.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
1.22 pm on 31 Jan 2007
ZooMuse – sorry about that added “o” in your name… Made it past my sleepy eyed quality control.
Comment by ZooMuse
1.32 pm on 31 Jan 2007
Better ZooMouse than ZooRat. Not a problem.
Comment by Helen
8.27 pm on 31 Jan 2007
Thanks Dean!
ZooMuse (12), I love the idea that we enter into relationships with people because that is the nature of God in us.
Comments are now closed.