Covenant and Accountability

Freedom is a good thing, but it isn't an absolute good. Disciples (my tradition) value it highly. It's one of our founding principles. At times we have made it an absolute good, but that has led to unimpeded individualism. In the 1960s the Disciples went through what we call "restructure." In essence we became a denomination in reality not just name. We went from a fellowship of independent churches and parachurch agencies, to a church that found expression as local congregation, regional church, and general church. In making this transition, it was determined that we would not be a hierarchical church. For example, General Church doesn't stand above the other two manifestations, rather each is fully church in its own right, and fully equal to the others. There are a number of reasons why we chose this route, some of which has to do with what was possible, but also due to a strong commitment to freedom.

But, the question was and is -- how do we live together without a coercive force binding us together? The answer was found in the principle of covenant, although Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn in their book Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice (Chalice, 2009), note that we have largely paid lip service to this principle. But, in theory at least, what this means is that we are bound together in a covenant relationship. The authors of the book (Kinnamon is primary author of this chapter) note 4 things that covenant is not:

1. "Not simply an agreement between humans." They note that in Reformed Tradition and in Scripture, covenant has both a vertical and horizontal dimension -- thus, Jesus is always part of the covenant process.

2. "A covenant is not legalistic, not simply a list of things to do or not do. Rather it involves a commitment "to walk together," seeking to conform ourselves as community -- through prayer, study, and conversation -- to the mind of Christ." The point of all of this is that if we're living in covenant we don't just get up and leave every time someone disagrees with you. You are committed to living together in your diversity.

3. "A Covenant is not a contract." In modern legal terms covenant may equal contract, but this is not true of either biblical nor Reformed understandings. As they not, the language is not "if/then," but "because, therefore" language.

4. Finally -- "A covenant has to do with freedom, but not freedom as our society generally understands it." It's not freedom to pursue our agenda free of any constraints, rather freedom is "the goal." It is the end toward we are journeying -- freedom in Christ. (pp. 12-13).

Unfortunately, too often we have paid lip service to our commitments to live in covenant relationship and we've essentially done what we want -- as individuals, congregations, regions, and general church units. We look out for ourselves, without any regard to the rest of the body. When we don't get our way or we are in disagreement, we leave and go elsewhere. I have been as guilty of this as anyone, but Kinnamon and Linn invite us to consider a different way, the way of freedom lived in the "constraints" of a covenant made not just with humans, but with God as well.

I'll offer more as we move forward.

Comments

Allan R. Bevere said…
Hi Bob,

I want to drop you an email to ask you a question, but I cannot find one on your website (Perhaps I am just not observant enough).

Could you drop me an email at arbevere(at)yahoo.com so I might email you in return.

Thanks!
John said…
Bob,

You quote "...rather freedom is "the goal."

"the goal" - what does that mean? In eternity there is some ineffable freedom shared with God? So then what is the earthly significance of that?

Is unlimited freedom in any particular context a viable possibility? Doesn't every choice result in a consequence - and don't potential consequences limit one's choices?

So how are we to interpret this notion of "freedom" in the context of membership in a community of believers? Doesn't the very term "membership" imply at least a self-imposed agreement to be bound TO the community, and BY the community's consensus on issues relevant to the community?

I guess what I am getting at here is that as Christians claiming membership in this community we call the denomination of Disciples of Christ, are we fooling ourselves into thinking we are free to believe what we choose, or are we fooling ourselves into thinking we are members of a genuine community?

Doesn't membership require us to give something up - besides the right to call ourselves Methodists?

For all of these reasons I have never understood the refusal of some Disciples to proclaim a denominational stance on issues, even specifically theological issues. There can even co-exist a majority and a minority position, lifting up the notion that there is room for change, in one direction or the other.

To continue to decline taking such stances is simply to wink at the notion that we might be a community of believers. In such case we are just a bunch of folks who sometimes enjoy each other's company.

OK, I am rambling.

John
Robert Cornwall said…
I think that the point here is that we as a community have bought into unbridled individualism. Thus, as a Disciple I can believe anything I want and no one can challenge that right. What our authors are concerned about is our refusal to listen to anyone else, especially those charged with being our teachers. Now, I know this may sound a bit self-serving -- but in our anti-clericalism Disciples have often thumbed their noses at their pastoral leaders. Is that individualism healthy for us or the church? But alas, I must add future posts to help clarify all of this!
Anonymous said…
John,

I need the freedom to be wrong.
I think that's why we're here.

I hope as a member we can continue our rite (an established, ceremonious, usually religious act or process art) of freedom.

David Mc
Anonymous said…
I noticed that too Allan. I usually just blurt out the question! David Mc

Popular Posts