Windows of Love

This book was born out of a living encounter with the members of theChristian Education Conference to which I lectured at the AmericanBaptist Assembly at Green Lake, Wis., in August of 1958. As I stepped tothe speaker’s rostrum to begin my first lecture to that group, and myfirst to so large a group of Baptist lay people, I wondered whether I asan Episcopalian and they as Baptists had images of each other that wouldhelp or hinder our communication. I shared with them my question andlearned later they had been asking themselves the same question. Iexplained that I had prepared myself to speak to them in the hope thatthrough me some of the truth of God would be heard by them, and Iexplained also that their lives were to be their preparation for hearingwhat I had to say; that is, that I hoped they would work as hard to hearme as I would work to make myself understood. They responded in goodspirit, so that the Spirit of God spoke through and to all of us.

I describe this occasion because it produced the experience and contextout of which the present book appeared. _Herein Is Love_ is, I believe,an outward and visible sign of the fellowship of the Holy Spiritexperienced on that occasion; and I offer it as a means of opening toothers the possibility of participating in this fellowship of the HolySpirit.

The theme of the book grows out of that experience: As the love of Godrequired incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth in order that it might bereceived by us, so the Word of God’s love in our day calls for personsin whom it may be embodied. The church, as the embodiment of divine lovein human relationships, has tremendous responsibilities andopportunities in our modern culture. The old and familiar biblicalsymbols and stories do not always communicate their meanings to mentoday, and we must find a language that does. The language of the livedlife of both man and God is the one that we shall use here in an attemptto open to us the meaning of the life of man and of God.

I

SOME FRIGHTENED FRIENDS

“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.”–_1 John 4:18_

“It seems to me that the church has lost its influence. Nobody pays muchattention to it any more, except some of its own members; and they don’tseem to be interested in anything except their own activities. The timewas when the word of the minister carried weight. Some may not haveagreed, but when the church spoke they paid attention. It’s not true

now, though.”

Mr. Clarke eyed the others in the group as if he were testing theirreactions to the statements he had just made. The church had alwaysgiven him a sense of security, and now he was both worried that itseemed to have lost its power, and resentful that people no longerlistened to its teaching.

He was one of a group of leaders of a local congregation who, at therequest of their minister, were meeting to re-examine the purpose of thechurch. Not all of the group had arrived as yet, and the minister of thecongregation, Mr. Gates, had been detained in his office by an emergencycall upon his pastoral care.

Within the minute after Mr. Clarke finished, Mr. Wise spoke up. He was athoughtful and compassionate member of the congregation who often raisedthe kind of questions that carried the discussion to deeper levels. Whenhis questions were ignored, as they often were, he would smilegood-naturedly and continue both as a contributor and as a questionraiser. Turning to Mr. Clarke, he said: “I think I know how you feel.The statements of our ordained spiritual leaders are important, but doyou think we should equate their words with–”

As usual, Mr. Wise’s comment was interrupted, and this time by Mr.Churchill who, with evident irritation, protested against any concernover what others thought about the church. He said: “The church has gotto be the church, and the world is different from it. I don’t like this’return to religion’ business. Christianity and the church aren’tsupposed to be popular movements. If people want to join the church,that’s fine; but if they don’t, that’s their lookout. Let’s be thechurch and leave the world to itself.”

“But why was Christ born _into the world_–” began Mr. Wise.

“I don’t agree,” exclaimed Mrs. Strait, responding to Mr. Churchill’scomment and not hearing Mr. Wise. “I think we should be concerned aboutthe world; concerned enough, at least, to set a good example, so thatpeople will know what they’re supposed to live up to and to do. Afterall, Jesus told us how we should live, and He did so in such simplewords that even children can understand them. All we have to do–andit’s written there for us to read–is to keep the commandments, imitateJesus, and live a good life for ourselves and others.”

“Yes, but if it’s that simple, why don’t church people live better–”

“Not at all! _Not at all!_” pronounced the stately Mr. Knowles with somedisdain. “I don’t agree with any of you. Our difficulties today resultfrom the ignorance of our people, and the answer to the problem iseducation. We need to teach, and teach again. Church people must knowtheir faith and know why they believe in it. When I was a child I was

drilled thoroughly in the knowledge of the Bible, and I once won a prizefor knowing more Bible verses than any other child. We need more adulteducation, and our children must be filled with the truth so they canrecite it forwards and backwards. In my estimation, there is too muchemphasis now on persons and not enough on the content of the faith.”

“But didn’t Jesus say, ‘For God so loved the world–’”

“It seems to me,” interrupted Professor Manby, “that all of you are intoo much of a hurry. Some scientists estimate that man has been eightmillion years coming to his present state of life. In contrast,civilized man is only four thousand years old. This being true, weshould be more patient. Given time, man will solve his problems.”

“But has man’s character developed in pace with his knowl–”

At that moment the Reverend Mr. Gates, with several other members of thecommittee, came into the room, and after greeting everyone he said: “Nowlet’s get down to business. As you know, I’ve called this meeting inorder that we may consider the purpose of our church in this community.I think we need a clearer understanding of why we are here. I wish wecould be surer that we are serving God’s purposes and not our own. Iwish we all would assume as true that God’s purposes for His church andfor us are greater than anything we may think they are, and that wewould hold our opinions and beliefs open to His correction and renewal.”

“How can we be any clearer about the purpose of this church than to keepit open and its organizations going, so that people can come to it ifthey want to,” exclaimed Mr. Churchill abruptly.

Mr. Wise now got to his feet, and with a twinkle in his eye beganspeaking: “You’ve all interrupted me several times, but now I’m going tospeak my piece. I think Mr. Gates is right. We do need occasionally torethink the reason for our existence as a church, lest it become aprivate club that caters to our own special needs. Our discussion so fartonight suggests that we want the church to be what we need it to be. Wewant God cut down to our own pattern and size. It may be that our churchis too small for God, and that we’ll turn out to be a religious, butgodless, club.”

“But how could that happen to us?” protested Mrs. Strait. “If we dowhat’s right, God will love us and use us as His obedient servants.”

“I wish Mr. Gates would set us straight on these matters. Were you goingto say anything more, Pastor?” inquired Mr. Clarke.

“Yes, I’ll have more to say,” replied Mr. Gates slowly, “but this is notmy problem only. That’s why I called you together. We need to help eachother think this question through. But to do that, we all shall need thespirit of Christ to help us. We need to look at the concepts and

meanings that we bring out of our lives in the light of Christ’steachings and example. He brought the gift of God’s love, but He broughtalso a judgment that was most disturbing to religious people. Instead ofour judging what is good for Christ, I pray that He will judge us, andhelp us to be the instruments of His love.”

“But you’re our minister and teacher, so why don’t you tell us what youthink the job of the church is in this community? I’m sure we’d allsupport you in whatever you might suggest,” urged Mr. Clarke.

“Mr. Clarke, I am not the church. I appreciate your confidence in me,but I am only one member of the church. The fact that I am ordained doesnot make me any more responsible for the church than you are, and Irefuse to assume your responsibilities for you. Instead, I want to usemy role as an ordained member of the church, and such training andexperience as I have had, to help you find _your_ role, so that togetherwe can carry on the functions of the church in ways that will serve Godand His people.”

When Mr. Gates finished speaking there was silence. The reactions of hishearers were varied, showing anxiety, irritation, confusion, andblankness. And no wonder! The spontaneous discussion that had gone onbefore Mr. Gates’ arrival had revealed how little their understandingsof the church had prepared them to hear the question he was raising. Theviewpoints they had brought to the meeting now closed their minds to themeanings he was trying to open to them.

What, then, were those concepts and meanings that made it so difficultfor them to hear and understand their minister? Each of themrepresented a point of view that is widely prevalent in the churchtoday and which keeps the church from being fully relevant andeffective.

_Clericalism_

When Mr. Clarke thought about the church, he did so in terms of theclergy and their work in the church. We might call him a “clericalizer”;that is, one who thinks that only the minister does the work of thechurch. This idea is the basis of clericalism, the disease which sapsthe strength of the church because one part of the body, the ordainedminister, is made to do the work of the rest of the body, the unordainedmembers. In the discussion Mr. Gates took exception to this idea, andrightly so, for it results in a clergy that is overworked andfrustrated. Indeed, they find it impossible to do all that needs to bedone. And yet the idea has a hidden appeal for many of them, for itfeeds their professional pride and arrogance. But the damage done bythis disease does not cease there. It also makes for church people whoare lazy, who feel that the church belongs to the clergy, and who arenot themselves instruments through which God works in the world. God is

kept from doing what He would do for them, because He cannot do throughthe clergy what He would do through the whole of His church.

Clericalism blocks the ministry of the church, because it tends to makelay members second-class citizens who feel incompetent on matters ofreligion. When the ordained member makes religious interpretation andaction his professional monopoly, the lay member responds by exhibitingincreasing ignorance and incompetence. Sometimes it seems as if laypeople show less intelligence in the church than in their world. It isas though the practice of religion had a stupefying effect on them,whereas in other areas of living they are intelligent, informed, andperceptive. This clericalizing of the church’s ministry produces in laymembers the sense that religion is separate from life. They are heard tosay to their ministers, “You stick to religion and leave the affairs ofthe world to us.” Religion thus becomes a Sunday business, and Sundaybusiness is kept separate from weekday business.

Still another and related ill effect of clericalism is that it keepslaymen from discovering the religious significance of their work.Parents, for example, are not only parents entrusted with the physical,psychological, and social care of their children, but also are theteachers, pastors, and priests of their children. A teacher may serveGod in his teaching, a doctor in his practice of medicine, a businessmanin the conduct of his business, a milkman in the delivery of milk, andthe garbageman in the collection of garbage. It is the business of thechurch to help these members find their ministry, but clericalism neverallows them to make the discovery.

Clericalism, like any other concept, is more than a set of ideas. Mr.Clarke didn’t just happen to hold that notion of the church. He held itbecause he needed it. His need grew out of his dependency, his timidity,and his fear of assuming responsibility. He needed to exalt the clergy.He wanted to be told what to believe and to do; and his “doctrine” ofthe ministry, namely, clericalism, justified him in his need. People whowant to be told what to believe and to do inevitably will develop ordrift toward a doctrine that is authenticated by their need.

Ministers also contribute to the prevalence of clericalism. All men havea very human and understandable need to be centrally important andindispensable, and ministers are tempted to exploit this need in theconduct of their work. It is only natural for them to think of thechurch as “my church,” of the people as “my people,” and of the ministryas “my ministry.” These images cause them to function as if everythingdepended upon them, and as if they wanted everyone to depend upon them.Indeed, they may even measure the success of their ministry by thenumber of people who depend upon them for guidance and support, ratherthan by the number who are achieving mature self-sufficiency. As a partof this same picture, some ministers are unable to accept suggestions,much less criticism. The clericalized image they hold of themselves isthat of an “answer man”; that is, one who has all the answers to human

problems, and always right answers.

Thus, clericalism is a condition contributed to by both the ordained andthe lay members of the church, and it tragically diminishes the power ofthe church. It is a symptom of Mr. Clarke’s fear and of our own. Itshows that we are afraid to trust God and to let His Spirit work throughthe whole of His people.

_Churchism_

Mr. Churchill’s ideas, on the other hand, represented a differentconcept, one which may be called churchism, or pietisticotherworldliness, a concept which encourages the church’s retreat fromthe world. It creates an artificial distinction between the religiousand the secular, the religious being thought of as worship and all theother activities that go on in the church building, and the secularconsidered to be everything that goes on outside the building. In itslocal version churchism is parochialism, or total preoccupation with thechurch as an institution at the level of the local community.

The tragedy of such parochialism is that the creative thought andenergies of people are consumed in the mere maintenance of the church asan institution, and in dead-end religious activity and worship. Mr.Churchill, and thousands of others who are like him, think of the churchonly as “gathered,” as a congregation. They think that the church ismost truly the church when its members are assembled in the churchbuilding and engaged in church work. They think of the church in termsof “going to church,” of working for its organizations, of planning forits promotion, and of meeting the needs of the church as an entityseparate from the rest of life. What is even worse, these people thinkthat only when they are doing this church work are they serving God.Theologically, their concept means that Christ died for the church.

Instead, Christ died for the world! The purpose, then, of the church isnot to meet its own needs but to serve God’s purposes in the world. Thisforces upon us the position that not only should we think of the churchin its _gathered_ sense, but also in its _dispersed_ sense. This meansthat church people should think of themselves as members of the churchwhen they are out in the world, and that their work in the world is themeans through which God may act through them in the accomplishment ofHis purposes. Therefore, in terms of the gathered church we can speak of”church work,” but in terms of the dispersed church we must think of the”work of the church in the world,” the work of the instrument of God’spurposes there.

The relation between the gathered church and the dispersed church shouldbe complementary. The church, as the people of God, comes together in aconscious way from out of the world to be renewed, instructed, andequipped for the purpose of returning, as the body of Christ, to its

task in the world. Then, out of its work in the world, the churchgathers again to worship, to make its offerings, and to be strengthenedanew for its work in the world. Elsewhere I have likened the church toan army that has been sent on a mission. In order to accomplish itspurpose, it must have a base. In order to have a base, it must assigncertain troops to the task of building and maintaining that base, sothat the rest of the army may be free to accomplish its mission. Wetend, however, to forget the “mission” and wastefully assign most of ourpeople to building and maintaining bases, with the result that we do notaccomplish our true purpose. More members need to be assigned to andtrained for the mission, where the conflict between life and death goeson unceasingly.

Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Churchill, therefore, a complementaryrelation exists between the church and the world. The world is thesphere of God’s action, and the church is the means of His action. Thechurch must be found at work in the world, where it will encounter thetension between the saving purposes of God and the self-centeredpurposes of man.

As in the case of clericalism, so it is in the case of churchism. Thereis a human reason for the existence of the concept and for itsprevalence in the church. The reason, in Mr. Churchill’s case, was tobe found in the conflict that he felt between his human interests andhis church membership. He had certain real estate holdings and otherinvestments from which he was making an excellent profit. Some of these,however, were exploitive and in contradiction to the faith which heprofessed. It was necessary, therefore, for him to keep the church andthe world separate; and his doctrine of the church made it possible forhim to rationalize the split between his faith and his life. We must notthink that Mr. Churchill engaged in this contradiction deliberately. Inpart, his action was the unconscious means by which he held on to twoconflicting values without suffering from the conflict between them. Wemust not think that Mr. Churchill is alone in this kind of separation ofbelief and practice, of splitting the church from the world. We all haveour own individual forms of it.

It is because of our insecurity and fear that we develop these defensiveattitudes of parochialism and churchism. We huddle like frightenedchildren behind the doors of the church, whereas, as soldiers of Christ,we should be struggling courageously on the frontiers of life where theconflicts between love and hate, truth and prejudice, are being waged.

_Moralism_

The next member of the group who spoke up was Mrs. Strait, and shevoiced for herself and for millions of other church people themoralistic understanding of the faith. Moralism is perhaps the mostwidespread of all the concepts that we are now discussing.

Moralism is usually identified as belief in good behavior as a source oflife. A group of church people, many of them leaders of their respectiveparishes, were asked to describe the Christian. It would be noexaggeration to say that their descriptions of a Christian made itdifficult to distinguish him from a Jew, because, according to theirstatements, a Christian is one who achieves his status as such byobeying the commandments of God. He must live a good life by keeping thelaw. The imitation of Jesus is the method, illuminated by a study ofHis teachings, especially the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. And,as Mrs. Strait indicated, they agreed that a Christian should set a goodexample for other people.

When asked how they felt about this concept of the Christian life, manyof them admitted that they were not too enthusiastic about it, becauseit was hard to achieve. They admitted that they failed often andmiserably. One man put it rather well when he said that he felt thattrying to be a Christian was like whistling in the dark. They alladmitted that their concept was widespread among their fellow churchmembers and that it had little appeal. When they were asked why such anunappealing concept of a Christian was so prevalent, they replied thatit was due to people’s feeling that they ought to be better than theyare. Their discussion revealed further that they were unable to acceptthemselves as human beings, and that they felt they had to justifythemselves by doing good works and by moral living.

That is the reason why Mrs. Strait holds to the moralistic concept ofthe Christian life. Separated from her husband and feared by herchildren, she feels acutely vulnerable and guilty. As a defense, she hasbuilt for herself a fortress made up of precepts, ideals, and rules, allbased on a foundation of righteousness, and this has made her aformidable and rigid person. Like all self-righteous people, shetirelessly dispenses obvious truths, and keeps her own life and that ofothers narrowly proscribed.

Mrs. Strait is in no way an exception. The lives of moralistic peopleare not beautiful to behold. They are apt to be conventional,legalistic, and maintainers of the status quo. Because they have nosense of deliverance themselves, they are apt to be ungracious inrelation to others. Because they live by the law, they do not show thefruit of the Spirit: namely, the love, joy, peace, and long-sufferingwhich should mark the followers of Christ. They reveal how impossible itis for a human being to be a Christian by himself. He needs the spiritof Christ to live in him and to remake him. As we shall see later, thereis available to us the spirit of Christ, who accomplishes in us therighteousness of Christ which is of the spirit and not of the law.

Moralism also is a sign of our fear and defensiveness. We reduce life tothe dimensions of a moral code, because we are afraid to trust theSpirit and to risk the dangers of love and its communication. As one

person said, “Let’s be proper so we won’t need to pray, for there is noknowing what God might ask us to do if we really listened to Him.” Inother words, moralism is a way of “playing it safe.”

_Intellectualism_

A fourth concept sometimes held by church members about the faith wasexhibited by Mr. Knowles. Its name is intellectualism. Thisintellectualism, sometimes called gnosticism, claims that knowledge isthe source of life, and that the possession of knowledge delivers usfrom the power of evil. This is an ancient heresy that lives on in everygeneration. The desire to know and the achievement of skill in the useof knowledge are indeed commendable. But to know is not justifiable asan end in itself. Knowledge about God and man, about the Bible and theChristian faith, about the church and its history, is good and necessaryfor informed Christian living, but it can in no way substitute for ourdependence upon Christ and the work of His spirit in us. We need to knowabout Christian faith, but it must not replace the need to love and tobe loved. Knowledge _about_ God must not become more important than our_knowing_ God.

When religious and theological knowledge becomes an end in itself, thechurch is apt to become coldly intellectual and sophisticated. I amreminded of a group of laymen who became avid students of Christiantheology, and who became so prideful in their achievement that theyexhibited in their relations with one another, as well as with theirother associates, a spirit of pride, arrogance, and competitiveness.They had acquired the knowledge of Christianity, but they had lost thespirit of the Christ.

The work of Christians is not so much to hold and transmit a knowledgeof the faith as it is to be the personal representatives and instrumentsof Christ in the world. To be sure, Christ’s representatives should knowwhat they are talking about and intellectually be able to enter intodialogue with all men. But their knowing should incarnate them, both aspersons and in their capacity to represent God and His Christ to men.

This brings us also to a controversy that exists in the field ofChristian education. Many people feel that the purpose of the churchschool is to transmit the content of the Christian faith. Christianeducation, however, must be personal. It must take place in a personalencounter, and only secondarily is it transmissive. It is true, however,that Christian education is responsible for the continued recital ofGod’s saving acts, and for the transmission of the subject matter of thehistorical faith and life of the Christian community. The content of ourfaith was born of God’s action and man’s response–a divine-humanencounter. It is neither possible nor correct to reduce this to subjectmatter and substitute the transmission of subject matter for theencounter, with the assumption that it will accomplish the same purpose

(it cannot, it never has, and it never will). Actually, the relations oftransmission and encounter are complementary. Both are needed. Thechurch, as the tradition-bearing community, contains both poles andshould not subordinate one to the other. When the content of thetradition is lost, the meaning of the encounter is lost, and in the endeven the encounter itself. Then tradition becomes idolatrous andsterile. Both are necessary to the community of faith, and both aremeaningless, even dangerous, if separated. Christian teaching isconcerned with both.

Mr. Knowles, however, is not happy about the required complementaryrelation between the content of the Christian faith and his life. AsMrs. Strait uses moralism for a defense, so Mr. Knowles uses hisemphasis on the content of the Bible as a way of protecting himself fromthe deeper and more personal challenges of life. He is estranged fromhis family, and he is regarded as austere and unfriendly by hisemployees and many of his business associates. Personal relationsfrighten him, but by mastery of knowledge he gains superiority and powerover others.

Intellectualism and gnosticism are not confined to the church. We seetheir influence in every walk of life. Many people _talk_ much about theimportance of love in human relationships, but they do not love. Theyuse their knowledge _about_ love as an evasion of their responsibilityto express love. Man cannot be saved by what he knows, but only by theway he lives with his brother. “If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hateshis brother, he is a liar.”[1] This is the stern but clear word of theScriptures.

But we can be so frightened by the risks of expressing love that we mayturn away from those who need our love and have a right to expect itfrom us. How much easier and safer it is to know _about_ God and Hislove, and to confine this meaning to the sanctuary and the study group!Intellectualism, then, is another way in which we try to “play it safe.”

_Humanism_

Professor Manby speaks for humanism, another point of view in thechurch. He, with others, says, “Give man time and he will work out hisown salvation.” Humanists, like Dr. Manby, often react against thereligiosity of the church with the complaint that the search for truthis cluttered with obsolete myths and meaningless observances. On theother hand, the humanists, while splendid in their devotion to truth,have only their opinion of what is good and true to guide them. Becausethey acknowledge no life beyond this one, they become the servants of aclosed system in which injustice frustrates the justice for which theyplead and work. The plight of the humanists is pathetic. Since theyaccept no savior, they can draw only on their own human resources, andare put in the position of trying to lift themselves by their own power.