Stephen Rowland: Love for one another? - Columbia Daily Herald

Stephen Rowland | The Daily Herald

There have been a few occasions in my life where I had to leave a home church and find a new one.

Perhaps you have been in those shoes in the past. Sometimes it was due to malfeasance on the part of the pastor; with no real authority in a church board to correct the situation, I had to “vote with my feet.” To leave a group of people that you have come to know and love for years is not inconsequential. It usually happens with tears.

I had a relative tell me that when the time came for him to leave a church, after a few weeks he was shocked that not one person ever called him to ask why he left. I thought that was awfully strange until it happened to me. People who I thought were my friends, people I had many conversations with, never bothered to call and ask what was going on. It was as though the very second they heard “Stephen isn’t coming here anymore and is looking for another church,” they mentally put me on some sort of “black list” — the “do not call list.”

I still think it’s really strange and so opposite to what we believe as Christians — that our church members are “family” and we truly love one another. If one of your natural family members suddenly disappeared, would you simply assume they left to find a better life somewhere else, so everything is OK?

What I slowly came to realize is that “church friends” are not really true friends — they are your friends while you are in church with them. That relationship does not extend past the church walls. True friends enjoy spending time with one another. They might visit each other in their homes or go out to participate in social activities together. They have each other’s phone numbers on their cellphones — and occasionally use them.

I have attended churches where the Wednesday night service was replaced with “cell groups” or “home groups” that met in each other’s homes for a short Bible study and fellowship. I found that environment was much more conducive to the formation of true friendships. If a member didn’t show up at church for a couple weeks, there were phone calls made to see if anything was wrong. There’s something about being in someone’s home and seeing how they live that produces a deeper bond than mere “church acquaintance.” In short, if you have never personally visited or called that church member who you haven’t seen in church lately, chances are you won’t feel comfortable cold-calling them or knocking on their door when they are absent. It’s an indicator that no true close relationship exists between the two of you.

Somehow I have the personal conviction that it’s not supposed to be that way. In my early childhood, I remember church members calling each other “brother Tim” or “sister Jane.” They regarded their church family relationships to be as emotionally close as natural family relationships. I’m afraid that’s a relic of the past in most churches.

For the first 300 years of Christianity, there were no such things as church buildings. Christians commonly worshipped together in their homes, outdoors, or in a borrowed or rented building. Church mortgages were nonexistent. Utility bills were not a worry. Pastors were often bivocational and so were not dependent on church offerings to make a living (as was 1st century Apostle Paul). Their main concern was for each other — each other’s spiritual development and meeting emergency needs with each other. They “had each other’s back” so to speak. It would be very difficult to leave a group like that because of the deep, loving friendships. It would be like leaving your natural family.

Modern churches seem so far removed from this “primitive” first century experience. We often attend church in a big expensive building where the church mortgage and utilities are a top priority. The pastor is a “professional” — highly educated and deserving of full time wages. We sit “entertained” by a professional sounding choir or band. It’s almost like attending a concert in many churches. We hear a polished sermon, then go home. We can repeat that pattern for years without having meaningful relationships with anyone else. Perhaps that’s why there is such a big problem now with church turnover and people “church shopping.” They can go out the back door as easily as they come in the front door.

This may be an overgeneralization, but the focus seems to have shifted from a 1st century Middle Eastern perspective of investing in each other, to a 21st modern American perspective of investing in an expensive edifice, an entertaining experience, a professional clergy. It’s almost as though “bigger is better.” The “mega church” is the ultimate goal and definition of success for the well compensated pastor.

Somehow I find myself yearning for the simple, or perhaps even small. The simplicity of knowing that another fellow believer cares for me, and vice versa, to the point of having an extended personal friendship which is stable over the years. Back and forth spiritual conversations and personal conversations. Caring about one another’s successes, failures, and needs. Singing a few worship songs together rather than being awed by the band. Discussing what certain verses mean from your perspective and mine.

Perhaps this lack of true friendship/fellowship phenomenon in the church mirrors our larger society. My 99-year-old neighbor says that people used to get out on their front lawns and talk with each other. Not any more; we don’t even know our neighbors. We’re too busy being “entertained” in our homes.

Jesus said that the world would recognize his disciples by their love for one another. I’m wondering how we measure up.

Adblock test (Why?)