Monday, December 3, 2012

“What’s the Point?”

I recently underwent inpatient treatment for alcoholism, addiction to Ativan, depression, PTSD, and, for good measure, an anxiety disorder thrown in as well.  In the weeks since I’ve discovered a new community in the Alcoholics Anonymous groups.  I have rarely experienced anything of community outside of the Church, so this is a new venture for me.  I am learning much.  I have experienced grace in a way I haven’t experienced it in all my years in the Church.  And I’m convinced that we have much to learn.  My first thoughts are about Mission and Purpose.

When people hear the words “Alcoholics Anonymous”, or AA, there is incredibly wide knowledge about AA’s mission, its purpose.  It is simple.  It is clear, so clear that even a drunk reclining in a gutter knows it.  AA helps people stop drinking.  Period.  “Each group has but one primary purpose—to   carry its message to the alcoholic that still suffers.”  (Tradition 5)  The only criterion of membership is a desire to stop drinking.  And the most important part of remaining in sobriety is by helping others.  Finally, this purpose is rooted a very real need in the world.  If no one wanted to stop drinking, AA would cease to exist.  If science ever devised the magic pill that would enable an alcoholic to drink normally, AA would have lost its reason for being.  As it is, day after day, alcoholics around the world wake up to the reality that they are powerless over alcohol and their lives had become unmanageable.  And so they turn to AA.

What’s the point?  What’s the purpose?  Does the path work?  Is there a real need?

What is the Church’s mission?  Can we state it with clarity?  Does the world outside the Church know what our mission is?  And does our mission respond to real issues in the world and in the lives of those outside the Church?  Most important, does what we have to offer to the world work?

When I consider the Church’s mission I have found great meaning in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20.  We are agents of reconciliation.  Is that the point?  Is that why we follow Jesus?  Is that why the Church exists?  Let’s suppose it is.

Does the world know and understand that?  When people and nations struggle with conflict, violence, and all forms of discord that are destroying their lives would they turn to the Church to find reconciliation and peace?

Certainly we could argue that there is a clear need for reconciliation in this world.  Animosity runs rampant.  Families are divided against themselves.  Our human community has been divided against itself for not just centuries, but millennia.  Reconciliation is clearly something the world needs.

But are we any good at it?  Here is where the Church fails miserably.  If people come to the Church wanting to be reconciled, desiring nothing more than to live in peace with one and all, and to become part of a loving community—they will be disappointed.  If I turned to AA in hopes of stopping drinking and arrived at the local meeting room only to find everyone there passed out in a drunken stupor, I would quickly turn elsewhere or give up hope altogether.  But isn’t that the experience of many who come to the Church?  How can we who are so divided against ourselves possibly engage the world with any credibility as “agents of reconciliation”?

What’s our mission?

Does it address a real need?

Do we offer a credible solution?
The Church should ask itself those three questions and answer with rigorous honesty.

2 comments:

Bob said...

A ministry of reconciliation. That has been my theme verse for quite a while. Thank you for the blog post.

Unknown said...

Today as I was reading today's entry in Buechner's "Listing to your Life", I thought of your post. Here's what he had to say, speaking of groups such as AA: "I do not believe that such groups... are perfect any more than anything human is perfect, but I believe that the Church has an enormous amount to learn from them. I also believe that what goes on in them is far closer to what Christ meant his Church to be, and what it originally was, than much of what goes on in most churches I know. These groups have no buildings or official leadership or money. They have no rummage sales, no altar guilds, no every-member canvases. They have no preachers, no choirs, no liturgy, no real estate. They have no creeds. They have no program. They make you wonder if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burn down and to lose all its money. Then all that the people would have left would be God and each other.
The church often bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the dysfunctional family. There is the authoritarian presence of the minister—the professional who knows all of the answers and calls most of the shots—whom few ever challenge either because they don’t dare to or because they feel it would do no good if they did. There is the outward camaraderie and inward loneliness of the congregation. There are the unspoken rules and hidden agendas, the doubts and disagreements that for propriety’s sake are kept more or less under cover. There are people with all sorts of enthusiasms and creativities which are not often enough made use of or even recognized because the tendency is not to rock the boat but to keep on doing things the way they have always been done. (Fredrick Buechner. "Listening To Your Life" p. 331-332.)

I'm thankful for both of you, for posing very challenging questions. Peace to you, Bradn