Commitment to the Church
I heard a protestant pastor the other day talk about how he had no problem asking people to commit themselves to Jesus but did have a problem asking them to commit to his church. This was a problem because churches need people to make commitments and they don’t do that unless the senior pastor inspires them to do it. It was pointed out that church leaders like Bill Hybels want you to ask for commitment frequently. There are always people waiting in the wings that need that push to come forward and be productive members of the church.
So why was this pastor having trouble doing that? Well, it is precisely because it is HIS church. Sure he has studied the scriptures. Sure he loves Jesus. Sure he has prayed and sought out God’s will in how to lead his church. Still it is HIS church. Other pastors have studied the same scriptures. They love Jesus intensely. They have prayed fervently. Yet they have been led to take their churches in a very different direction. So on what basis do you ask someone to commit to your church instead of some other pastor’s church? There really isn’t one. Still, without asking for and getting such commitments from people the church does not work.
The majority of pastors just see the practical need to ask for that commitment and so they meet that need by asking. This fellow is an exception in that he is bothered by the contradiction between what is required to make things work and what he as a protestant believes about the church. He does not see it as a rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. He sees it as a community of fallible believers who take leadership from him. As good as that might be why should one commit to that? You could find something better tomorrow. As a pastor it would be highly arrogant to suppose your church is the best they are going to do.
I was reminded of a passage Marcus Grodi pointed out to me a while ago:
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? Rom 10:14-15
The idea of being “sent” here is seen as a prerequisite for preaching. In the course of this conversation there were references to Moses. Moses was clearly sent. God spoke to him at the burning bush. He has no trouble demanding the people of Israel follow him. The disciples were sent in Jn 20:21 ”As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” Paul was sent in Acts 20:21, “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” Paul goes on to send Timothy ant Titus. The are then encouraged to send others:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and ordain elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless … Titus 1:5-7
There you have the idea of one person in every town being sent by Titus and Paul sending Titus to do his ministry in Crete. The ultimate sender remains Jesus through His apostles and then through His elders or priests. Still the sending goes on in an objective manner. It is not a subjective feeling of being sent that comes from prayer and scripture study. You can name the person who sent you and explain why they have the authority to do so and who sent them and so forth.
So then you would figure that no Catholic priest would ever have trouble asking people to commit themselves to the church. Somehow they still do. Their really isn’t reason for it. Jesus said the Kingdom of God was like a pearl of great price. It is worth selling all you have in order to attain it. Somehow many priests lack the confidence to say it. We need both the passion that protestants have and the legitimacy that the Catholics have to ask for that commitment. It is rare to find both. When we do find it the results can be so powerful.
