First, Second, and Third Things
Several years ago I heard a sermon that included the idea of first and second things. As a way of sorting through seemingly competing loyalties and priorities, it's helpful to define things in these terms. I liked the sermon and played it for my students in the Anabaptist History class I was teaching at the time. I still have a recording of it somewhere.
Today I heard reference to some of the same things and had more questions than I did the first time I heard the ideas--especially in the church/family categorization. The way it was stated certainly made sense: The church is the "first thing" because it provides a framework and context for the second thing: the family. I heartily agree that the family's life is to be lived in the larger context of church life. When individual congregations fragment along biological family lines, one of the undesirable consequences is that inevitably those who have no biological family in the congregation are left alone. When the church family is the "first thing" all are included.
In the response time after the sermon, I wondered if I should voice some of my questions publicly, but then my son and my father spoke first during that time, and I decided that having one family monopolize the response time probably wasn't a good idea--on that subject, especially. It's unthinkable, of course, for a woman to publicly challenge a preacher, and I needed a little more time anyway than I had in church to think through and frame properly what I was sensing. Then I remembered the admonition in Scripture to "ask your husband at home," so I did. I found that Hiromi's thinking traveled along the same lines as mine.
Chronology gave me pause. In order of creation, or, stated another way, in the order in which the basic units of social order were revealed, the individual came first, then the family, then the church. The epistles are full of family imagery to describe the life of the church, so much so that it almost seems as if we can't know much of the family of God if we don't know much about family life first.
Approached another way, it's also correct to say that there would be no local congregation if there were not first individuals and families to make up the church.
Furthermore, while we collectively serve God within the church, the church collectively is to serve others, including individuals and families, some of whom are within the church. For example, the equipping and teaching ministry of the church can quite properly be aimed toward preparing parents to train their own children. Resisting temptation, managing finances, and nurturing relationships are other areas in which the church has an obligation to serve individuals and families through instruction and support.
During the sermon today I began to wonder if the idea of "interdependence" would provide helpful companion insights to the "first and second things" idea. Aren't the individual, family, and church properly regarded as being interdependent?
Near the end of the sermon I had ample time to thoroughly regret that I was too sleepy part of the time to catch all the nuances of what was said. Maybe this idea was, in fact, presented, and I missed it. And maybe I missed other helpful balancing truths.
The process of thinking through the content of today's sermon reminded me of a conversation with Paul and Edith on the way home from Indiana. We were talking about death, and who causes death--God or Satan. Paul wondered aloud if it's important to resolve the question in those terms.
I'm wary of routine "impossible to resolve in those terms" conclusions when issues seem especially knotty or unsettling. It seems like a cop-out. However, in the discussion on death, I did feel that Paul was probably right in thinking that maybe it wasn't terribly important to nail down an either/or position. He affirmed my thinking that it is always Satan who causes death, but God is always right there too, to usher His children into heaven, and to carry out perfect judgment. However, Paul pointed out that death can be viewed as the provision of a merciful God Who does not leave man to live indefinitely in a sin-cursed earth. I agree.
I've thought for a long time that being able to live with some ambiguity is a condition of good mental health, so I choose not to obsess inordinately over things I can't quite resolve.
I also know that most systems of categorization have limitations--not everything fits as neatly into the boxes we've made as we sometimes wish.
So I'm willing to think of the investigation into first and second things as a helpful way of sorting things out, but subject also to parallel insights (third things?) that may fill in where the "box" isn't quite big enough to contain all that should be considered. Overall, the exercise in thinking things through has been worthwhile and stimulating.
Today I heard reference to some of the same things and had more questions than I did the first time I heard the ideas--especially in the church/family categorization. The way it was stated certainly made sense: The church is the "first thing" because it provides a framework and context for the second thing: the family. I heartily agree that the family's life is to be lived in the larger context of church life. When individual congregations fragment along biological family lines, one of the undesirable consequences is that inevitably those who have no biological family in the congregation are left alone. When the church family is the "first thing" all are included.
In the response time after the sermon, I wondered if I should voice some of my questions publicly, but then my son and my father spoke first during that time, and I decided that having one family monopolize the response time probably wasn't a good idea--on that subject, especially. It's unthinkable, of course, for a woman to publicly challenge a preacher, and I needed a little more time anyway than I had in church to think through and frame properly what I was sensing. Then I remembered the admonition in Scripture to "ask your husband at home," so I did. I found that Hiromi's thinking traveled along the same lines as mine.
Chronology gave me pause. In order of creation, or, stated another way, in the order in which the basic units of social order were revealed, the individual came first, then the family, then the church. The epistles are full of family imagery to describe the life of the church, so much so that it almost seems as if we can't know much of the family of God if we don't know much about family life first.
Approached another way, it's also correct to say that there would be no local congregation if there were not first individuals and families to make up the church.
Furthermore, while we collectively serve God within the church, the church collectively is to serve others, including individuals and families, some of whom are within the church. For example, the equipping and teaching ministry of the church can quite properly be aimed toward preparing parents to train their own children. Resisting temptation, managing finances, and nurturing relationships are other areas in which the church has an obligation to serve individuals and families through instruction and support.
During the sermon today I began to wonder if the idea of "interdependence" would provide helpful companion insights to the "first and second things" idea. Aren't the individual, family, and church properly regarded as being interdependent?
Near the end of the sermon I had ample time to thoroughly regret that I was too sleepy part of the time to catch all the nuances of what was said. Maybe this idea was, in fact, presented, and I missed it. And maybe I missed other helpful balancing truths.
The process of thinking through the content of today's sermon reminded me of a conversation with Paul and Edith on the way home from Indiana. We were talking about death, and who causes death--God or Satan. Paul wondered aloud if it's important to resolve the question in those terms.
I'm wary of routine "impossible to resolve in those terms" conclusions when issues seem especially knotty or unsettling. It seems like a cop-out. However, in the discussion on death, I did feel that Paul was probably right in thinking that maybe it wasn't terribly important to nail down an either/or position. He affirmed my thinking that it is always Satan who causes death, but God is always right there too, to usher His children into heaven, and to carry out perfect judgment. However, Paul pointed out that death can be viewed as the provision of a merciful God Who does not leave man to live indefinitely in a sin-cursed earth. I agree.
I've thought for a long time that being able to live with some ambiguity is a condition of good mental health, so I choose not to obsess inordinately over things I can't quite resolve.
I also know that most systems of categorization have limitations--not everything fits as neatly into the boxes we've made as we sometimes wish.
So I'm willing to think of the investigation into first and second things as a helpful way of sorting things out, but subject also to parallel insights (third things?) that may fill in where the "box" isn't quite big enough to contain all that should be considered. Overall, the exercise in thinking things through has been worthwhile and stimulating.
posted by Mrs. I at
5:00 PM
1 Comments:
I tend to agree with you that family is the first thing and church is second. Presumably, most of us spend considerably more time with and for family, than in church work. Maybe you should ask Ronald how he applies it. I believe he agrees with our interpretation. However, he says there are periods of time where church activities take priority over family. For their family that probably means church services and other functions, as well as Ronald attending ministers' meetings, studying to preach, etc.--Linda Rose
By
Anonymous, at 7/21/2010
Post a Comment
<< Home