Today's chapter looks at the "rubber meeting the road," so to speak. The author begins by looking at "Lone Ranger" Christianity, the idea that we don't need church to be a Christian. So often in my past I have agreed with this, but then made the followup remark, "but it's really hard." Today I don't believe that anymore... what I mean is, I don't believe you can be a Christian without the Church. I capitalize "Church" because I'm not referring to any congregation or building, but to a community of believers. Today I believe that being a part of the Church is essential to Christianity. A study is cited that shows, when polled, the growing group in America is "spiritual but not religious." Many of us have decided that we can do without "organized religion" but we are increasingly feeling spiritual. The question is put forth, "will religion survive the spirituality boom?" Another important question arises: how can it be that "what was intended to be a catalyst for spiritual life (religion/the church) has become a hindrance to it in far too many instances"? What do you think? Do we really need a church? The Church?
Further on, the author also goes on to suggest that perhaps our struggle with church may come from relational issues, wondering if we can be "distinctive without being divisive?" The thinking is that distinctiveness without relationship can lead to division and even discord. If we include relationship, we begin to understand each other in a better way, seeing the person rather than the issue. In this manner, the relationship becomes more important than the distinctiveness, and we are able to enjoy each other without division. The skeptic could argue that this is just a form of "I'm ok, you're ok," an idea that we have viewed as negative and unscriptural "relativism". Is there room for this kind of thinking in our theology?
