A Sense of Your Calling
A Discourse on the Complacency of the Contemporary Church in an Ever-Changing World
This was written in 2019; I am intending to rewrite this essay in the near future.
Preface
The notion that we're in this journey together—that we're collectively pursuing God as desperately as we like to say in our prayers and sing in our worship—is extremely vague, ephemeral, or entirely nonexistent among people in church. There is a stark lack of a sense of calling—the conviction that we should constantly be seeking to meditate on God's word, to collectively complete God's work, to look out for one another as God's people. When it should be the place where we carry out some of the most important work in our lives, church feels uninspired, passionless, and inconsequential.
I know with certainty that such depth of community in our church doesn't exist because if it did, I wouldn't be left out. I also know, with certainty, that I'm not the only one that feels this way, and that this problem is not particular to solely this church; the same social mechanisms that have undergirded my past interactions undergird those for the rest of the community. I do not, however, think that I am indisputably right about anything I say here; this is merely me expounding my theory on why church structure and social norms—at least of contemporary middle-class America—inhibit the development of a faith-centered, interdependent community in church, and instead proliferate friend circles that share an intimacy and sense of belonging constrained to a group of several individuals. For most, this is what constitutes community; it is what makes church, or perhaps Christianity as a whole, bearable. Just as we might act in any social situation, whether it be a classroom, a club meeting, or the workplace, we act in church. However, for those who haven't been as fortunate to have found socially compatible individuals to lead them in the right direction or have genuine fellowship with, church becomes an oppressive experience—a constant yearning for understanding, friendship, purpose, a sense of His calling—so much so that it eventually becomes intolerable.
I am not writing this because I am personally offended by anyone's actions or lack thereof. Put curtly, I don't care. In reality, I am quite ambivalent about living out a Christian life. In fact, I think I am equally a victim of the same circumstances that have deterred many other individuals from pursuing more meaningful friendships. I am writing this because I want to help those that actually care about building a better community—a better church—that more closely reflects the truth and the sentiment of the Bible. I am writing this because I feel sorry for everyone that has, like me, felt the same feeling of estrangement from the community in their church, everyone that has hoped church would be an escape from the vapidity and superficiality of modern society, everyone that has been desperate for truth and had no one to walk beside them; indeed, "woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up" (Ecc 4:10). While I acknowledge that many of us have attempted to reach out to individuals who seem isolated or disassociated with the church community, I am here to argue that the efficacy of those efforts have been stifled for the aforementioned reasons.
I want to put aside the imprecise rhetoric and our shortsighted approach of symptomatic treatment, that we might become conscious of the fundamental reasons why we might not choose to be open with one another, to love as we should, or to truly commit our lives fully to Christ. Might we attribute the problem to a lack of genuine love, faith, prayer, etc., it would simply be too vague; our solutions have to move beyond merely lecturing people that they should love more, pray more, read the Bible more, or do those things in a certain way. We have to understand that there are specific structural deficiencies and psychosocial challenges in the church that we can directly address.
There's no room to compromise, to be complacent, or to wait any longer for change. How can we, when we're called to be "ready in season and out of season" (2 Tim 4:2), when we're supposed to be ceaselessly vigilant (Acts 20:31), when, "like a thief in the night," (1 Thess 5:2) Jesus may make His return at any moment? Not only are there souls desperately waiting to be saved, but also hearts, inured to or hardened by this conditional love constrained by the dictates of society, yearning to be transformed by a love that more closely reflects the perfect love of Christ.
What characterizes a healthy church community?
Francis Chan urges us to dispense of our preconceptions of what elements should constitute a healthy church and instead look objectively at what the Bible has to say. Church, he argues, is about sustaining one another in this communal mission with a mutual sense of calling. It is a version of community where we not only love each other, but need each other.
The primary practical function of church is to fulfill the two primary needs of the social Christian, the first of these being love, which has the obvious function of facilitating unity and connection among the members of the church.
Rom 12:10-16 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
Eph 2:14-19 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. and he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household.
1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
A healthy church community possesses a profound form of unity wherein an unconditional love pervades, a kind of "brotherly love" that is capable of overcoming any potential barriers to fellowship.
The second key characteristic of a healthy church is the prevalence of a sense of calling among its members. Soboroff (2012) would describe this sense of calling as the "perceived jointness of a task," or the degree to which each member of a group felt that they were contributing to a particular goal (in this case, our calling, or God's work). What we can specifically define as "our calling" or "God's work" is undoubtedly complex, but in the end, we can agree that our efforts here on earth should ultimately be to share the love of Christ in the most authentic way possible. Consequently, the two fundamental needs of the Christian—love and a sense of calling—turn out to be inextricably connected.
John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.
Eph 4:14-16 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
1 Cor 12:14-26 For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary [or, in some translations, indispensable]; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Acts 2:43-47 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
The essence of these passages is that members of the church must have a discernible and indispensable role within the body as to feel a sense of progression and purpose in the context of their life as a Christian. Their lives and actions are intertwined with one another; driven by love, they are filled with an empathic desire to understand and care for the other members of the body impartially.
However, I will argue that love and a sense of calling are not merely connected, but that love is ultimately what facilitates a sense of calling by fostering unity in the body. Consider the following verses and the Bible's emphasis on this notion through the words one or same in the context of our calling:
Rom 15:5-6 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 4:1-6 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Phil 2:1-2 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
1 Cor 12:25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
Heb 10:24-25 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging [one another]; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.
John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Consequently, unity is fostered by love as a way of growing and binding each member to one another. With love, unity is established. Unity—more specifically unity in mind and intent—is essential because our calling cannot be collectively realized if our hearts are not in the same place. The entire concept of the body in 1 Cor 12, and thus the sense of calling that comes from each member playing an indispensable role, would fall apart without a unity built by love.
1 Cor 13:1-3 reads:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
My argument here is fundamentally this: if we are unable to love, the body will disintegrate, we will fail to perceive a sense of calling, and we will thus fail to have a church. Without love, we are nothing.
The Fundamental Problem
Upon making clear what constitutes healthy church community, there are several conspicuous problems in the modern church that emerge:
The persistence of friend circles/cliques - the majority of interactions and emotional investment among churchgoers are constrained to close friends or individuals with similar interests, isolating individuals from one another.
A staggering amount of people find church, aside from interaction with friends, boring or unfulfilling
Fellowship is often stilted - going out of your way to discuss the Bible or your personal life is, for many people, unnatural and awkward, even among close friends.
There is nothing wrong with changing churches - because of the three points discussed above, many find that the solution would be to find a church that better suits their needs. Not only does this behavior completely contradict 1 Cor 12, there is no reason to believe that what one finds unappealing about a church is solely unique to that individual. It is inherently selfish to extricate oneself from the body and leave the same unfavorable conditions for the rest of the church to endure. The Christian life is most certainly not only about catering to one’s personal preferences and needs, but rather the body as a whole.
It is acceptable to stop going to church for a certain period of time or leave the church entirely - members of the church are seemingly unperturbed upon realizing another member has stopped attending—that is, if they even realize in the first place. When we’re called to “rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep,” (Rom 12:15), we fail to even acknowledge their existence.
The most fundamental problem that hinders true love is undoubtedly sin, but from a practical, realistic standpoint, it's not useful to tackle that problem directly for obvious reasons. It is difficult to love for four reasons: social norms, modern circumstances, the structure of service, and group size.
Proposition: Social norms hinder intimacy and foster vapidity by deterring behaviors that enable one to love according to the Bible.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom 12:2)
Within church, we approach social relationships the same way as we would outside the church; we approach it not with biblical notions of sacrifice and unconditional love, but instead with our hardwired societal notions of individualism, personal responsibility, self-restraint, as well as our preconceptions of friendship. For a great deal of us, church is not a place where genuine and lasting fellowship is achieved. If there's no culture of love that preexists in the church to pave the way for a sense of calling, we let the social norms, imported from modern society, do the work for us. This creates a negative feedback loop that continually diminishes intimacy between church members.
The first phase of this loop begins with the interactions between church members. Because approaching others according to the Bible's norms of love—notions of an intimate, "brotherly love," humility, and a profound empathy—is diametrically opposed to our normal course of behavior, church community inevitably becomes extremely friendship-based. In their social discomfort, members of the church will naturally resort to that aforementioned course of behavior: gravitating towards compatible others and emotionally isolating the rest. This is what creates friend circles or cliques with little, vague connection to the other members of the church. A vast majority of these friendships are built not upon the foundations of a shared love for Christ, but rather upon common interests, shared experiences, or mutual circumstances. This is done not because people are inherently shallow or superficial, but rather because it is a normalized psychological response to a new, daunting social environment, as one would approach friendships in school or at work. Consider this quote from Dever's book:
"When Christians unite around something other than the gospel, they create community that would likely exist even if God didn’t. As a modern-day tower of Babel, that community glorifies their strength instead of God’s. And the very earnest things they do to create this type of community actually undermine God’s purposes for it. Gospel-plus community may result in the inclusive relationships we’re looking for. But it says little about the truth and power of the gospel" (23-24).
At least in the contemporary United States, due to the aforementioned, prying into other people's lives—sometimes even among close friends — is a very foreign, often socially unacceptable behavior. Similarly, openly sharing the vulnerable parts and struggles of one’s life with other people is often deterred by cynicism or social discomfort. Only a handful of people are willing to share about their lives, and even fewer would be willing to pry. Again, this is not because people are inherently cold or unloving, but because it's socially uncomfortable to do so, as it veers from the norm to encroach on others outside of one's current circle of friends. It is important to note, however, that even within the bounds of the circle, discussing personal issues or the Bible is often uncomfortable and unnatural because of the fact that these friendships were not established around the gospel.
Furthermore, because of the fragmented nature of the social structure that currently exists, a vast majority of church members are unaware of the general status, let alone the spiritual condition, of church members outside their friend circle, that is, if they were even fortunate enough to have found friends. If one changes their church, leaves the church, or even stops believing, it will typically go unnoticed. When 1 Cor 12 calls us "to have the same care one for another," we seem to only care about the people that entertain us, that cater toward our needs. Within the context of church, this an incredibly dangerous social norm; if we require that relationships must be a reciprocal two-way commitment where church members have the individual responsibility of forming their own friendships, then we choose to blatantly forsake all those who have become disenchanted with the church and stopped believing, all those who find initiating conversations or opening up to people difficult, all those who might have been depressed, ill, or under any other difficult circumstances and had no motivation or willpower to search for companionship. As fewer and fewer individuals will garner the motivation or spiritual conviction to genuinely go out of their way to invest in other people's lives, many become disillusioned, and the rest become complacent.
Because social norms have deterred adherence to Biblical notions of love, the members naturally destroy any possibility of having unity in the body, resulting in a church with virtually no sense of calling. Instead, vapidity, awkwardness, and frivolousness will define church culture and will thus pervade most of the interactions inside and outside of the church for the modern Christian. Thus, the archetype of the Christian life is trivialized and banalized by the nature of these interactions, and members of the church will conform to this standard. As we accept this status quo, outsiders will view the church with disdain. To them, the church does not radiate a warm, divine love for one another, but rather exhibits vapidity, reflecting the emptiness and hypocrisy we experience in everyday life.
Modern Circumstances
A large reason why many aren't particularly invested in church is simply because of the myriad responsibilities and activities that occupy most of our time and attention.
Dever (p. 123): Consider all the forces conspiring to minimize the importance of the local church:
Career. The modern job market is nonstop, global, and incessantly competitive. Between trips out of town, late nights at work, and urgent deadlines, providing for a family can all but squeeze out space for relationships at church. In my business career before becoming a pastor I managed a team in six cities spread across three continents. No regular nine to five there! You might live in a city where stable careers with predictable hours are the norm. But for many, that way of life does not exist.
Location. In an effort to find affordable housing, good education, and a manageable commute, church members may live across a wide metro area. The time and energy required to span that distance can seriously discourage relational investment.
Recreation. Decisions to join a sports team, to buy a boat, and to spend summers away can all curtail investment in relationships at church.
Family. For many families, it’s their children’s extracurricular commitments more than their own that regulate their capacity for church involvement. Beyond that, every Christian must weigh carefully their responsibilities to care for children, spouse, and extended family (Eph. 5:33; 6:4; Matt. 15:4-9) with the biblical priority of the “household of faith” (Gal. 6: 10).
I will not comment on this directly simply because there is nothing we can do to alter these circumstances on any significant scale.
Proposition: The rigid structure and routine of modern life seems to necessitate a similarly rigid structure and ritualistic nature of institutional church that banalizes the experience of church and fellowship.
Bas Rijksen suggests that perhaps the institution we know as "church" should only be used temporarily or sparingly, primarily as a meeting place or community center to find like-minded Christians. He argues that the inane routine and the "performance" of Sunday service destroy any possibility of a meaningful, profound Christian life. True fellowship is instead attained through small-scale gatherings in homes, cafés, parks, etc. between believers, unhindered by the daunting realities of institutional church. He asserts, "Eventually the conformity that the institution demands and the freedom people need to grow in Christ are at odds with one another."
I will not argue here that any form of liturgy is bad in and of itself, but I will argue that a meticulously organized and excessively rigid routine of church service can undoubtedly have a number of detrimental effects for an individual’s experience of church. In his journal article, Ian Hussey, drawing insights from the frequently cited article by McMillan and Chavis (1986), argues that a sense of community within the church consists of four elements: 1) Membership, 2) Influence, 3) Integration and Fulfillment of Needs, and 4) Shared Emotional Connection.
For many of us, we require some degree of autonomy and influence within any community we are a part of. Hussey defines influence as "a sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members." Within an immutable, over-structuralized system, the individual must conform to the behavioral expectations of church leadership in every phase of church service. To no surprise, this conformity fosters complacency in the way that it obligates you to do the same thing over and over again every week while expecting progress; it minimizes our worldview, shelters us from the daunting reality of the destitute, unsaved world outside, and lowers our expectations not only of what Christian life should be, but also of God’s power to change. Consequently, the members become a passive audience to the "performance" of the service. Having a strict routine inhibits the vast majority of individuals from loving one another more freely and from discovering their role in church apart from being yet another spectator.
The routine of church service can also fail to fulfill another fundamental psychological need—novelty and a sense of progression. In his article, Steve Coerper writes, "The “Go To Church On Sunday” model is a FAILURE. It cripples the church. This model can't be fixed. It must be abandoned." Coerper is not so much disputing whether or not church should be on Sunday in particular, but rather he, along with Rijksen, is contesting the widespread conception of church as a once or twice-a-week event inside of a specific building that is structured in a very particular manner, i.e. musical performance as worship, corporate prayer, lecturing by a pastor, Sunday school, and subsequent small talk, culminating into an often inconsequential and banal experience for the masses. For many that feel trapped in ritual and routine, this induces an overwhelming sense that the church is not where anything particularly important takes place. Hussey writes:
The growing influence of postmodern thinking means that people are motivated less by loyalty to an institution, even one as innocuous as a small group, and more by functionality. If a group has a cause which people are passionate about they will gravitate towards it and sacrificially invest in its success and in the process experience a powerful sense of community. (12)
Hence, for most, to think that church could be spontaneous—a congregation responding to a yearning in our hearts at any point in time—would be absurd or impractical. This formalized structure stifles the freedom of the spirit that is necessary to create a productive, meaningful environment conducive to valuable shared emotional connection among church members. The crux of the Coerper's assertion is that breaking free of the paradigmatic "Go To Church On Sunday [or Friday]" model is essential to create intimate communities that are able to congregate not by a vague, external obligation, but rather a collective desire of love brought upon by the spirit.
Proposition: Group sizes are critical in determining the degree of intimacy between church members, and every member of the church must be in a group to experience love and a sense of calling.
Within larger groups, we have an extremely limited awareness of the general status, let alone the spiritual condition, of individuals outside of our current friend circles. If we choose to define this body of several hundreds of individuals as a church, how can we possibly neglect one part when, according to 1 Cor 12, it is indispensable? The result is a conspicuous display of hypocrisy when we thoughtlessly use terms such as "Brothers and Sisters in Christ" or "One body in Christ."
If we analyze this problem in church through the lens of social psychology, the deficiencies of our current church structure become apparent. In the article "Group size and the trust, cohesion, and commitment of group members" (Soboroff, 2012), the author argues that groups that possess greater than six members have "lower trust, cohesion, and commitment" than members in smaller groups. Soboroff specifically defines this idea of task jointness as an important factor in determining group intimacy; it measured the degree to which each member felt they were contributing to a particular task, which, in our case, is our calling, or God's work. Furthermore, as group size increases, interaction among members becomes less frequent, becoming "more likely to violate group norms, report feeling more anonymous, and contribute less" (3).
According to Soboroff, excessive group size can have a number of other adverse effects. He argues:
As group size increases, the shared sense of responsibility between group members decreases
As group size increases, group member perceptions of trust will decrease
As group size increases, individual group members will be less committed to the group.
The perceived jointness of a task decreases as the number of group members increase
The less joint people perceive the task to be, the more likely coalition formation [schisms and subgroups] will be within the group
As a consequence, it is my argument here that we absolutely must emphasize that the collective group of individuals gathered in the institution of church is not where one should seek community and spiritual connection. Rather, we must ensure that each individual belongs to smaller, focused groups of individuals to reinforce a sense of belonging and combined purpose as a Christian while providing valuable exhortations and meaningful fellowship. Regardless if we define these small groups as a church or part of a church, every single individual needs to be in at least one relatively small circle of people equally concerned about one another's faith. It's simply too difficult—from a social psychological perspective—to fulfill the truths for fellowship outlined in the Bible in a large group. The optimal group size as argued by Soboroff is necessary to consider if we are to ensure that the members are able to love one another genuinely and comfortably. Put simply, we have a moral obligation to ensure that no person is left out.
Furthermore, as Francis Chan and Mark Dever (p. 147) argue, these groups of individuals should be temporary so as to not impede the progress of God's mission, as we have to reach out to unbelievers or other believers who have not had the privilege to be among devoted, loving Christians in this walk.
What can we do?
A review:
A healthy church community is characterized by two key components: love and a sense of calling.
These two components—love and a sense of calling—are inextricably connected. A sense of calling can only be achieved when members of the church can love genuinely and freely, fostering unity as one mind and one body.
The modern Christian's ability to love is hindered by social norms, modern circumstances, church structure, and group sizes.
Social norms hinder intimacy and foster vapidity by deterring one from loving others according to the Bible.
The rigid structure and routine of modern life necessitates a similarly rigid structure of church that banalizes the experience of church and fellowship.
Group sizes are critical in determining the degree of intimacy between church members, and every member of the church must be in a group to share love and a sense of calling. .
As it stands now, the state of church is unacceptable. Each day that we choose to persist in the current system is another day we blatantly choose to live contrary to scripture. A staggering number of people are either drifting away or steering clear of church or the Christian life as a whole because their two primary needs as a social Christian—love and a sense of calling—cannot be satisfied in the current structure and cultural status quo that exists in BCTC and many other contemporary churches. Even the potential for believers to be used effectively in God's mission is often squandered; in an insipid environment that fosters complacency, they are incapable of being desperate for God's love and His people.
There's no way to stop the aforementioned cycle caused by cultural norms unless we actively interpose the Bible's norms instead, as outlined in the verses in the first section, within every interaction that occurs within the church. Dever sets forth a number of potential solutions to the problem of community (p. 131):
Personal example. Much of what I’m describing in this chapter is a culture change I saw happen in my own church. But this did not happen overnight; rather, it was a slow process trickling through the congregation. One person began investing intentionally in the lives of a few others, who in turn caught the vision and began living in the same way. A few people moved their homes nearer to the church—followed by more as the wisdom of that decision became evident. Do not undervalue the long-term power of good examples. Select church leaders who model the type of church culture you want (1 Pet. 5: 3). Hold up as examples those faithful church members who invest in relationships even though they don’t participate in many church programs. And encourage your own friends in the church to be good examples themselves.
Preaching. Remember, the best church policies in the world cannot change the hearts of your congregation. Where does supernatural change begin? It begins with a spark of faith, ignited as our people hear the Word of Christ. Do not undervalue the ability of faithful preaching to change church culture.
Prayer. Ask God to do this supernatural work in your own church. Many times, prayer is the most practical thing you “do” to encourage change.
Patience. Watching a culture of intentional relationships take root can feel like watching paint dry. We must have faith in the ordinary means of grace. As we preach faithfully, pray, and model godly relationships, change will often happen. But as Christ’s servants, our job is not to “effect change.” It is to be faithful. We work diligently to guide our churches in the right direction. And then as much as we long for change, we can rest content with whatever pace our Lord deems best. In fact, the richest harvest from our toil may only become visible long after our time on earth is finished. As Charles Bridges said so well, “The seed may lie under the clods till we lie there, and then spring up.”
I am not here to comment on the feasibility of my proposition within our current circumstances, but I will say this—we certainly should not be willing to compromise the Christian ideal of unconditional love and God’s vision for His people for arbitrary notions of practicality or convenience. Within a prosperous middle-class context where we need not sacrifice our lives, time, or resources to sustain each other, the least we can sacrifice is our comfort—to go out of our way to talk to someone genuinely, to break free of the social norms of interaction, to express a Christlike love uninhibited by the world.
References
New American Standard Bible
Dever, Mark; Dunlop, Jamie. The Compelling Community (9Marks). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
Ian Hussey - "Sense of Community in Churches: A Practical Theological Perspective" (2013)
Shane Drew Soboroff - "Group size and the trust, cohesion, and commitment of group members"(2012)