{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20289/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20289","id":"gutenberg_20289","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20289","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Love","Love -- Religious aspects -- Christianity"],"text":"E-text prepared by Mark C. Orton, David Wilson, and the Project Gutenberg\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net/c/)\n\n\n\n   +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n   |                                                              |\n   | Transcriber's Note:                                          |\n   |                                                              |\n   | The original title page verso was as below.                  |\n   |                                                              |\n   | Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the     |\n   | copyright on this publication was renewed.                   |\n   |                                                              |\n   +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n\nHEREIN IS LOVE\n\nby\n\nREUEL L. HOWE\n\n\n\nabout this book\n\n\"God created man to live in relation with the world of things, with\nhimself, and with his fellow men, and to live in these relationships in\nsuch a way that he will ... grow in his relationship with God,\" writes\nDr. Howe in this meaningful book. He describes the true significance of\nChristian fellowship and how it can come about and exist. Living\nresponsibly by giving ourselves to one another--parent to child, child\nto parent, pastor to congregation, congregation to one another, church\nto the world--only in living out the Word of God's love in human\nrelationships can we experience the love of God.\n\nDr. Howe wrote this book at the request of the Division of Christian\nEducation and the Division of Evangelism of the American Baptist\nConvention. It grew out of a series of lectures he presented at a\nnational conference on Christian education at Green Lake, Wis., on the\nsubject, \"Growth in the Christian Fellowship.\"\n\nIt is intended that this book be used in study groups such as parent\ngroups or parent-teacher groups. Pastors and students of the church will\ngain new insights from it. Moreover, any individual who is truly\ninterested in the Christian life will find that it is addressed to him.\n\n_Cover Design by Alexander Limont_\n\n\n\n\nHEREIN IS LOVE\n\n\n\n\nBy the same author_\n_Man's Need and God's Action_\n_The Creative Years_\n\n\n\n\nHEREIN IS LOVE\n\nA Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Love in Its Bearing\non Personality, Parenthood, Teaching, and All Other\nHuman Relationships\n\nby\n\nREUEL L. HOWE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Judson Press\nChicago       Valley Forge       Los Angeles\n\n   +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n   |                                                              |\n   | Copyright (C) 1961                                           |\n   |                                                              |\n   | by THE JUDSON PRESS                                          |\n   |                                                              |\n   | Sixth printing, April, 1963                                  |\n   |                                                              |\n   | All rights in this book are reserved. No part of the text    |\n   | may be reproduced in any manner without permission in        |\n   | writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief      |\n   | quotations included in a review of the book in a magazine or |\n   | newspaper.                                                   |\n   |                                                              |\n   | Except where indicated otherwise, the Bible quotations in    |\n   | this volume are in accordance with the Revised Standard      |\n   | Version of the Bible, copyright 1946 and 1952, by the        |\n   | Division of Christian Education of the National Council of   |\n   | the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and  |\n   | are used by permission.                                      |\n   |                                                              |\n   | LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NO. 61-11105.               |\n   |                                                              |\n   | Printed in the U.S.A.                                        |\n   |                                                              |\n   +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n_To my children_\n\nMarjorie and Lanny\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nThis book was born out of a living encounter with the members of the\nChristian Education Conference to which I lectured at the American\nBaptist Assembly at Green Lake, Wis., in August of 1958. As I stepped to\nthe speaker's rostrum to begin my first lecture to that group, and my\nfirst to so large a group of Baptist lay people, I wondered whether I as\nan Episcopalian and they as Baptists had images of each other that would\nhelp or hinder our communication. I shared with them my question and\nlearned later they had been asking themselves the same question. I\nexplained that I had prepared myself to speak to them in the hope that\nthrough me some of the truth of God would be heard by them, and I\nexplained also that their lives were to be their preparation for hearing\nwhat I had to say; that is, that I hoped they would work as hard to hear\nme as I would work to make myself understood. They responded in good\nspirit, so that the Spirit of God spoke through and to all of us.\n\nI describe this occasion because it produced the experience and context\nout of which the present book appeared. _Herein Is Love_ is, I believe,\nan outward and visible sign of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit\nexperienced on that occasion; and I offer it as a means of opening to\nothers the possibility of participating in this fellowship of the Holy\nSpirit.\n\nThe theme of the book grows out of that experience: As the love of God\nrequired incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth in order that it might be\nreceived by us, so the Word of God's love in our day calls for persons\nin whom it may be embodied. The church, as the embodiment of divine love\nin human relationships, has tremendous responsibilities and\nopportunities in our modern culture. The old and familiar biblical\nsymbols and stories do not always communicate their meanings to men\ntoday, and we must find a language that does. The language of the lived\nlife of both man and God is the one that we shall use here in an attempt\nto open to us the meaning of the life of man and of God.\n\n                                                  Reuel L. Howe\n\nJanuary 10, 1961\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                             PAGE\n  FOREWORD                                                     7\n\n  CONTENTS                                                     9\n\n\n  I\n  SOME FRIGHTENED FRIENDS                                     11\n\n    \"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.\"\n    --_1 John 4:18_\n\n\n  II\n  GOD IN THE WORLD                                            26\n\n    \"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son....\"\n    --_John 3:16_\n\n\n  III\n  HEREIN IS LOVE                                              43\n\n    \"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and\n    he who loves is born of God and knows God.\"--_1 John 4:7_\n\n\n  IV\n  SOME OBJECTIVES OF LOVE                                     61\n\n    \"Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in\n    deed and in truth.\"--_1 John 3:18_\n\n\n  V\n  THOSE WHO WOULD LOVE                                        82\n\n    \"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because\n    we love the brethren.\"--_1 John 3:14_\n\n\n  VI\n  LOVE IN ACTION                                              99\n\n    \"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us:\n    and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.\"\n    --_1 John 3:16_\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nSOME FRIGHTENED FRIENDS\n\n    \"There is no fear in love,\n                        but perfect love casts out fear.\"--_1 John 4:18_\n\n\n\"It seems to me that the church has lost its influence. Nobody pays much\nattention to it any more, except some of its own members; and they don't\nseem to be interested in anything except their own activities. The time\nwas when the word of the minister carried weight. Some may not have\nagreed, but when the church spoke they paid attention. It's not true\nnow, though.\"\n\nMr. Clarke eyed the others in the group as if he were testing their\nreactions to the statements he had just made. The church had always\ngiven him a sense of security, and now he was both worried that it\nseemed to have lost its power, and resentful that people no longer\nlistened to its teaching.\n\nHe was one of a group of leaders of a local congregation who, at the\nrequest of their minister, were meeting to re-examine the purpose of the\nchurch. Not all of the group had arrived as yet, and the minister of the\ncongregation, Mr. Gates, had been detained in his office by an emergency\ncall upon his pastoral care.\n\nWithin the minute after Mr. Clarke finished, Mr. Wise spoke up. He was a\nthoughtful and compassionate member of the congregation who often raised\nthe kind of questions that carried the discussion to deeper levels. When\nhis questions were ignored, as they often were, he would smile\ngood-naturedly and continue both as a contributor and as a question\nraiser. Turning to Mr. Clarke, he said: \"I think I know how you feel.\nThe statements of our ordained spiritual leaders are important, but do\nyou think we should equate their words with--\"\n\nAs usual, Mr. Wise's comment was interrupted, and this time by Mr.\nChurchill who, with evident irritation, protested against any concern\nover what others thought about the church. He said: \"The church has got\nto be the church, and the world is different from it. I don't like this\n'return to religion' business. Christianity and the church aren't\nsupposed to be popular movements. If people want to join the church,\nthat's fine; but if they don't, that's their lookout. Let's be the\nchurch and leave the world to itself.\"\n\n\"But why was Christ born _into the world_--\" began Mr. Wise.\n\n\"I don't agree,\" exclaimed Mrs. Strait, responding to Mr. Churchill's\ncomment and not hearing Mr. Wise. \"I think we should be concerned about\nthe world; concerned enough, at least, to set a good example, so that\npeople will know what they're supposed to live up to and to do. After\nall, Jesus told us how we should live, and He did so in such simple\nwords that even children can understand them. All we have to do--and\nit's written there for us to read--is to keep the commandments, imitate\nJesus, and live a good life for ourselves and others.\"\n\n\"Yes, but if it's that simple, why don't church people live better--\"\n\n\"Not at all! _Not at all!_\" pronounced the stately Mr. Knowles with some\ndisdain. \"I don't agree with any of you. Our difficulties today result\nfrom the ignorance of our people, and the answer to the problem is\neducation. We need to teach, and teach again. Church people must know\ntheir faith and know why they believe in it. When I was a child I was\ndrilled thoroughly in the knowledge of the Bible, and I once won a prize\nfor knowing more Bible verses than any other child. We need more adult\neducation, and our children must be filled with the truth so they can\nrecite it forwards and backwards. In my estimation, there is too much\nemphasis now on persons and not enough on the content of the faith.\"\n\n\"But didn't Jesus say, 'For God so loved the world--'\"\n\n\"It seems to me,\" interrupted Professor Manby, \"that all of you are in\ntoo much of a hurry. Some scientists estimate that man has been eight\nmillion years coming to his present state of life. In contrast,\ncivilized man is only four thousand years old. This being true, we\nshould be more patient. Given time, man will solve his problems.\"\n\n\"But has man's character developed in pace with his knowl--\"\n\nAt that moment the Reverend Mr. Gates, with several other members of the\ncommittee, came into the room, and after greeting everyone he said: \"Now\nlet's get down to business. As you know, I've called this meeting in\norder that we may consider the purpose of our church in this community.\nI think we need a clearer understanding of why we are here. I wish we\ncould be surer that we are serving God's purposes and not our own. I\nwish we all would assume as true that God's purposes for His church and\nfor us are greater than anything we may think they are, and that we\nwould hold our opinions and beliefs open to His correction and renewal.\"\n\n\"How can we be any clearer about the purpose of this church than to keep\nit open and its organizations going, so that people can come to it if\nthey want to,\" exclaimed Mr. Churchill abruptly.\n\nMr. Wise now got to his feet, and with a twinkle in his eye began\nspeaking: \"You've all interrupted me several times, but now I'm going to\nspeak my piece. I think Mr. Gates is right. We do need occasionally to\nrethink the reason for our existence as a church, lest it become a\nprivate club that caters to our own special needs. Our discussion so far\ntonight suggests that we want the church to be what we need it to be. We\nwant God cut down to our own pattern and size. It may be that our church\nis too small for God, and that we'll turn out to be a religious, but\ngodless, club.\"\n\n\"But how could that happen to us?\" protested Mrs. Strait. \"If we do\nwhat's right, God will love us and use us as His obedient servants.\"\n\n\"I wish Mr. Gates would set us straight on these matters. Were you going\nto say anything more, Pastor?\" inquired Mr. Clarke.\n\n\"Yes, I'll have more to say,\" replied Mr. Gates slowly, \"but this is not\nmy problem only. That's why I called you together. We need to help each\nother think this question through. But to do that, we all shall need the\nspirit of Christ to help us. We need to look at the concepts and\nmeanings that we bring out of our lives in the light of Christ's\nteachings and example. He brought the gift of God's love, but He brought\nalso a judgment that was most disturbing to religious people. Instead of\nour judging what is good for Christ, I pray that He will judge us, and\nhelp us to be the instruments of His love.\"\n\n\"But you're our minister and teacher, so why don't you tell us what you\nthink the job of the church is in this community? I'm sure we'd all\nsupport you in whatever you might suggest,\" urged Mr. Clarke.\n\n\"Mr. Clarke, I am not the church. I appreciate your confidence in me,\nbut I am only one member of the church. The fact that I am ordained does\nnot make me any more responsible for the church than you are, and I\nrefuse to assume your responsibilities for you. Instead, I want to use\nmy role as an ordained member of the church, and such training and\nexperience as I have had, to help you find _your_ role, so that together\nwe can carry on the functions of the church in ways that will serve God\nand His people.\"\n\nWhen Mr. Gates finished speaking there was silence. The reactions of his\nhearers were varied, showing anxiety, irritation, confusion, and\nblankness. And no wonder! The spontaneous discussion that had gone on\nbefore Mr. Gates' arrival had revealed how little their understandings\nof the church had prepared them to hear the question he was raising. The\nviewpoints they had brought to the meeting now closed their minds to the\nmeanings he was trying to open to them.\n\nWhat, then, were those concepts and meanings that made it so difficult\nfor them to hear and understand their minister? Each of them\nrepresented a point of view that is widely prevalent in the church\ntoday and which keeps the church from being fully relevant and\neffective.\n\n\n_Clericalism_\n\nWhen Mr. Clarke thought about the church, he did so in terms of the\nclergy and their work in the church. We might call him a \"clericalizer\";\nthat is, one who thinks that only the minister does the work of the\nchurch. This idea is the basis of clericalism, the disease which saps\nthe strength of the church because one part of the body, the ordained\nminister, is made to do the work of the rest of the body, the unordained\nmembers. In the discussion Mr. Gates took exception to this idea, and\nrightly so, for it results in a clergy that is overworked and\nfrustrated. Indeed, they find it impossible to do all that needs to be\ndone. And yet the idea has a hidden appeal for many of them, for it\nfeeds their professional pride and arrogance. But the damage done by\nthis disease does not cease there. It also makes for church people who\nare lazy, who feel that the church belongs to the clergy, and who are\nnot themselves instruments through which God works in the world. God is\nkept from doing what He would do for them, because He cannot do through\nthe clergy what He would do through the whole of His church.\n\nClericalism blocks the ministry of the church, because it tends to make\nlay members second-class citizens who feel incompetent on matters of\nreligion. When the ordained member makes religious interpretation and\naction his professional monopoly, the lay member responds by exhibiting\nincreasing ignorance and incompetence. Sometimes it seems as if lay\npeople show less intelligence in the church than in their world. It is\nas though the practice of religion had a stupefying effect on them,\nwhereas in other areas of living they are intelligent, informed, and\nperceptive. This clericalizing of the church's ministry produces in lay\nmembers the sense that religion is separate from life. They are heard to\nsay to their ministers, \"You stick to religion and leave the affairs of\nthe world to us.\" Religion thus becomes a Sunday business, and Sunday\nbusiness is kept separate from weekday business.\n\nStill another and related ill effect of clericalism is that it keeps\nlaymen from discovering the religious significance of their work.\nParents, for example, are not only parents entrusted with the physical,\npsychological, and social care of their children, but also are the\nteachers, pastors, and priests of their children. A teacher may serve\nGod in his teaching, a doctor in his practice of medicine, a businessman\nin the conduct of his business, a milkman in the delivery of milk, and\nthe garbageman in the collection of garbage. It is the business of the\nchurch to help these members find their ministry, but clericalism never\nallows them to make the discovery.\n\nClericalism, like any other concept, is more than a set of ideas. Mr.\nClarke didn't just happen to hold that notion of the church. He held it\nbecause he needed it. His need grew out of his dependency, his timidity,\nand his fear of assuming responsibility. He needed to exalt the clergy.\nHe wanted to be told what to believe and to do; and his \"doctrine\" of\nthe ministry, namely, clericalism, justified him in his need. People who\nwant to be told what to believe and to do inevitably will develop or\ndrift toward a doctrine that is authenticated by their need.\n\nMinisters also contribute to the prevalence of clericalism. All men have\na very human and understandable need to be centrally important and\nindispensable, and ministers are tempted to exploit this need in the\nconduct of their work. It is only natural for them to think of the\nchurch as \"my church,\" of the people as \"my people,\" and of the ministry\nas \"my ministry.\" These images cause them to function as if everything\ndepended upon them, and as if they wanted everyone to depend upon them.\nIndeed, they may even measure the success of their ministry by the\nnumber of people who depend upon them for guidance and support, rather\nthan by the number who are achieving mature self-sufficiency. As a part\nof this same picture, some ministers are unable to accept suggestions,\nmuch less criticism. The clericalized image they hold of themselves is\nthat of an \"answer man\"; that is, one who has all the answers to human\nproblems, and always right answers.\n\nThus, clericalism is a condition contributed to by both the ordained and\nthe lay members of the church, and it tragically diminishes the power of\nthe church. It is a symptom of Mr. Clarke's fear and of our own. It\nshows that we are afraid to trust God and to let His Spirit work through\nthe whole of His people.\n\n\n_Churchism_\n\nMr. Churchill's ideas, on the other hand, represented a different\nconcept, one which may be called churchism, or pietistic\notherworldliness, a concept which encourages the church's retreat from\nthe world. It creates an artificial distinction between the religious\nand the secular, the religious being thought of as worship and all the\nother activities that go on in the church building, and the secular\nconsidered to be everything that goes on outside the building. In its\nlocal version churchism is parochialism, or total preoccupation with the\nchurch as an institution at the level of the local community.\n\nThe tragedy of such parochialism is that the creative thought and\nenergies of people are consumed in the mere maintenance of the church as\nan institution, and in dead-end religious activity and worship. Mr.\nChurchill, and thousands of others who are like him, think of the church\nonly as \"gathered,\" as a congregation. They think that the church is\nmost truly the church when its members are assembled in the church\nbuilding and engaged in church work. They think of the church in terms\nof \"going to church,\" of working for its organizations, of planning for\nits promotion, and of meeting the needs of the church as an entity\nseparate from the rest of life. What is even worse, these people think\nthat only when they are doing this church work are they serving God.\nTheologically, their concept means that Christ died for the church.\n\nInstead, Christ died for the world! The purpose, then, of the church is\nnot to meet its own needs but to serve God's purposes in the world. This\nforces upon us the position that not only should we think of the church\nin its _gathered_ sense, but also in its _dispersed_ sense. This means\nthat church people should think of themselves as members of the church\nwhen they are out in the world, and that their work in the world is the\nmeans through which God may act through them in the accomplishment of\nHis purposes. Therefore, in terms of the gathered church we can speak of\n\"church work,\" but in terms of the dispersed church we must think of the\n\"work of the church in the world,\" the work of the instrument of God's\npurposes there.\n\nThe relation between the gathered church and the dispersed church should\nbe complementary. The church, as the people of God, comes together in a\nconscious way from out of the world to be renewed, instructed, and\nequipped for the purpose of returning, as the body of Christ, to its\ntask in the world. Then, out of its work in the world, the church\ngathers again to worship, to make its offerings, and to be strengthened\nanew for its work in the world. Elsewhere I have likened the church to\nan army that has been sent on a mission. In order to accomplish its\npurpose, it must have a base. In order to have a base, it must assign\ncertain troops to the task of building and maintaining that base, so\nthat the rest of the army may be free to accomplish its mission. We\ntend, however, to forget the \"mission\" and wastefully assign most of our\npeople to building and maintaining bases, with the result that we do not\naccomplish our true purpose. More members need to be assigned to and\ntrained for the mission, where the conflict between life and death goes\non unceasingly.\n\nContrary to the opinion of Mr. Churchill, therefore, a complementary\nrelation exists between the church and the world. The world is the\nsphere of God's action, and the church is the means of His action. The\nchurch must be found at work in the world, where it will encounter the\ntension between the saving purposes of God and the self-centered\npurposes of man.\n\nAs in the case of clericalism, so it is in the case of churchism. There\nis a human reason for the existence of the concept and for its\nprevalence in the church. The reason, in Mr. Churchill's case, was to\nbe found in the conflict that he felt between his human interests and\nhis church membership. He had certain real estate holdings and other\ninvestments from which he was making an excellent profit. Some of these,\nhowever, were exploitive and in contradiction to the faith which he\nprofessed. It was necessary, therefore, for him to keep the church and\nthe world separate; and his doctrine of the church made it possible for\nhim to rationalize the split between his faith and his life. We must not\nthink that Mr. Churchill engaged in this contradiction deliberately. In\npart, his action was the unconscious means by which he held on to two\nconflicting values without suffering from the conflict between them. We\nmust not think that Mr. Churchill is alone in this kind of separation of\nbelief and practice, of splitting the church from the world. We all have\nour own individual forms of it.\n\nIt is because of our insecurity and fear that we develop these defensive\nattitudes of parochialism and churchism. We huddle like frightened\nchildren behind the doors of the church, whereas, as soldiers of Christ,\nwe should be struggling courageously on the frontiers of life where the\nconflicts between love and hate, truth and prejudice, are being waged.\n\n\n_Moralism_\n\nThe next member of the group who spoke up was Mrs. Strait, and she\nvoiced for herself and for millions of other church people the\nmoralistic understanding of the faith. Moralism is perhaps the most\nwidespread of all the concepts that we are now discussing.\n\nMoralism is usually identified as belief in good behavior as a source of\nlife. A group of church people, many of them leaders of their respective\nparishes, were asked to describe the Christian. It would be no\nexaggeration to say that their descriptions of a Christian made it\ndifficult to distinguish him from a Jew, because, according to their\nstatements, a Christian is one who achieves his status as such by\nobeying the commandments of God. He must live a good life by keeping the\nlaw. The imitation of Jesus is the method, illuminated by a study of\nHis teachings, especially the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. And,\nas Mrs. Strait indicated, they agreed that a Christian should set a good\nexample for other people.\n\nWhen asked how they felt about this concept of the Christian life, many\nof them admitted that they were not too enthusiastic about it, because\nit was hard to achieve. They admitted that they failed often and\nmiserably. One man put it rather well when he said that he felt that\ntrying to be a Christian was like whistling in the dark. They all\nadmitted that their concept was widespread among their fellow church\nmembers and that it had little appeal. When they were asked why such an\nunappealing concept of a Christian was so prevalent, they replied that\nit was due to people's feeling that they ought to be better than they\nare. Their discussion revealed further that they were unable to accept\nthemselves as human beings, and that they felt they had to justify\nthemselves by doing good works and by moral living.\n\nThat is the reason why Mrs. Strait holds to the moralistic concept of\nthe Christian life. Separated from her husband and feared by her\nchildren, she feels acutely vulnerable and guilty. As a defense, she has\nbuilt for herself a fortress made up of precepts, ideals, and rules, all\nbased on a foundation of righteousness, and this has made her a\nformidable and rigid person. Like all self-righteous people, she\ntirelessly dispenses obvious truths, and keeps her own life and that of\nothers narrowly proscribed.\n\nMrs. Strait is in no way an exception. The lives of moralistic people\nare not beautiful to behold. They are apt to be conventional,\nlegalistic, and maintainers of the status quo. Because they have no\nsense of deliverance themselves, they are apt to be ungracious in\nrelation to others. Because they live by the law, they do not show the\nfruit of the Spirit: namely, the love, joy, peace, and long-suffering\nwhich should mark the followers of Christ. They reveal how impossible it\nis for a human being to be a Christian by himself. He needs the spirit\nof Christ to live in him and to remake him. As we shall see later, there\nis available to us the spirit of Christ, who accomplishes in us the\nrighteousness of Christ which is of the spirit and not of the law.\n\nMoralism also is a sign of our fear and defensiveness. We reduce life to\nthe dimensions of a moral code, because we are afraid to trust the\nSpirit and to risk the dangers of love and its communication. As one\nperson said, \"Let's be proper so we won't need to pray, for there is no\nknowing what God might ask us to do if we really listened to Him.\" In\nother words, moralism is a way of \"playing it safe.\"\n\n\n_Intellectualism_\n\nA fourth concept sometimes held by church members about the faith was\nexhibited by Mr. Knowles. Its name is intellectualism. This\nintellectualism, sometimes called gnosticism, claims that knowledge is\nthe source of life, and that the possession of knowledge delivers us\nfrom the power of evil. This is an ancient heresy that lives on in every\ngeneration. The desire to know and the achievement of skill in the use\nof knowledge are indeed commendable. But to know is not justifiable as\nan end in itself. Knowledge about God and man, about the Bible and the\nChristian faith, about the church and its history, is good and necessary\nfor informed Christian living, but it can in no way substitute for our\ndependence upon Christ and the work of His spirit in us. We need to know\nabout Christian faith, but it must not replace the need to love and to\nbe loved. Knowledge _about_ God must not become more important than our\n_knowing_ God.\n\nWhen religious and theological knowledge becomes an end in itself, the\nchurch is apt to become coldly intellectual and sophisticated. I am\nreminded of a group of laymen who became avid students of Christian\ntheology, and who became so prideful in their achievement that they\nexhibited in their relations with one another, as well as with their\nother associates, a spirit of pride, arrogance, and competitiveness.\nThey had acquired the knowledge of Christianity, but they had lost the\nspirit of the Christ.\n\nThe work of Christians is not so much to hold and transmit a knowledge\nof the faith as it is to be the personal representatives and instruments\nof Christ in the world. To be sure, Christ's representatives should know\nwhat they are talking about and intellectually be able to enter into\ndialogue with all men. But their knowing should incarnate them, both as\npersons and in their capacity to represent God and His Christ to men.\n\nThis brings us also to a controversy that exists in the field of\nChristian education. Many people feel that the purpose of the church\nschool is to transmit the content of the Christian faith. Christian\neducation, however, must be personal. It must take place in a personal\nencounter, and only secondarily is it transmissive. It is true, however,\nthat Christian education is responsible for the continued recital of\nGod's saving acts, and for the transmission of the subject matter of the\nhistorical faith and life of the Christian community. The content of our\nfaith was born of God's action and man's response--a divine-human\nencounter. It is neither possible nor correct to reduce this to subject\nmatter and substitute the transmission of subject matter for the\nencounter, with the assumption that it will accomplish the same purpose\n(it cannot, it never has, and it never will). Actually, the relations of\ntransmission and encounter are complementary. Both are needed. The\nchurch, as the tradition-bearing community, contains both poles and\nshould not subordinate one to the other. When the content of the\ntradition is lost, the meaning of the encounter is lost, and in the end\neven the encounter itself. Then tradition becomes idolatrous and\nsterile. Both are necessary to the community of faith, and both are\nmeaningless, even dangerous, if separated. Christian teaching is\nconcerned with both.\n\nMr. Knowles, however, is not happy about the required complementary\nrelation between the content of the Christian faith and his life. As\nMrs. Strait uses moralism for a defense, so Mr. Knowles uses his\nemphasis on the content of the Bible as a way of protecting himself from\nthe deeper and more personal challenges of life. He is estranged from\nhis family, and he is regarded as austere and unfriendly by his\nemployees and many of his business associates. Personal relations\nfrighten him, but by mastery of knowledge he gains superiority and power\nover others.\n\nIntellectualism and gnosticism are not confined to the church. We see\ntheir influence in every walk of life. Many people _talk_ much about the\nimportance of love in human relationships, but they do not love. They\nuse their knowledge _about_ love as an evasion of their responsibility\nto express love. Man cannot be saved by what he knows, but only by the\nway he lives with his brother. \"If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates\nhis brother, he is a liar.\"[1] This is the stern but clear word of the\nScriptures.\n\nBut we can be so frightened by the risks of expressing love that we may\nturn away from those who need our love and have a right to expect it\nfrom us. How much easier and safer it is to know _about_ God and His\nlove, and to confine this meaning to the sanctuary and the study group!\nIntellectualism, then, is another way in which we try to \"play it safe.\"\n\n\n_Humanism_\n\nProfessor Manby speaks for humanism, another point of view in the\nchurch. He, with others, says, \"Give man time and he will work out his\nown salvation.\" Humanists, like Dr. Manby, often react against the\nreligiosity of the church with the complaint that the search for truth\nis cluttered with obsolete myths and meaningless observances. On the\nother hand, the humanists, while splendid in their devotion to truth,\nhave only their opinion of what is good and true to guide them. Because\nthey acknowledge no life beyond this one, they become the servants of a\nclosed system in which injustice frustrates the justice for which they\nplead and work. The plight of the humanists is pathetic. Since they\naccept no savior, they can draw only on their own human resources, and\nare put in the position of trying to lift themselves by their own power.\nThey can only whistle in the dark. While man apart from God cannot save\nhimself, God's love for the world works in the world, and He has a part\nfor man to take. In the relation between God and man, there is need for\nboth the greatness of God _and_ the greatness of man.\n\n\n_Dealing with Conflicts_\n\nAnd so these five frightened friends, familiar types to us all, reveal\nto us how easy it is to get lost in our preoccupations and to distort or\ndiminish the truth we would serve.\n\nMr. Gates, the minister, has his anxieties, too. He represents the\nordained ministry of the church, which is caught between the demands of\nthe theory of Christianity and the demands of the world; between the\ndemands of the pulpit and the demands of the pew; between the church as\nan institution and the church as a saving power in the world; between\nthe surges of the spirit and the sucking drag of tradition. And he\nhimself is also trapped by the demands of his image of himself as a\nminister and the demands of his people's image of him; by the idealism\nof his training for the Christian ministry and the realism of the\ndemands on his ministry in the church and in the world.\n\nHe cannot resolve these conflicts by himself, nor should he try. These\nare not his conflicts. They are the conflicts of the church's ministry,\nand he and the people need to deal with them together. Neither he nor\nthey will be able to resolve the conflicts, because they are the\ninevitable tensions between the spirit and the Law, and between life and\nform. But Mr. Gates and all other ministers, together with the rest of\nthe people of God, by reason of the Christian faith, must live through\nthese conflicts and deal with them creatively.\n\nBoth Mr. Gates and his people need to accept conflicts as an inevitable\npart of life, especially of a life that is lived in response to a call\nor a loyalty. No growth or learning takes place at any depth without\nsuch conflict: conflict between the known and the unknown, between our\nneed for security and our need for maturity. This is the nature of life.\nAs for the gospel, let us not forget that its universally accepted\nsymbol is the cross, a symbol of the conflict between love and hate,\nbetween life and death. As Christians, our only realistic expectation is\nthat because of our Christian belief and practice, our conflicts will\nincrease and intensify rather than diminish. The only peace we may hope\nto have is an irrational peace, an \"in-spite-of\" peace, the peace of\nthe depths beneath the storm-tossed surface; in other words, \"the peace\nof God, which passes all understanding.\"[2] To suggest how this may be\nachieved in some areas of life is the purpose of this book.\n\nFinally, Mr. Wise, the member of the group whose remarks were always\nbeing interrupted by the others, represents a Christian point of view\nwhich, in the church generally, is listened to no more than it was here.\nWhat he was trying to say will be explored more fully as an answer to\nsome of the questions raised in this chapter.\n\n\n   [1] 1 John 4:20.\n   [2] Phil. 4:7.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nGOD IN THE WORLD\n\n    \"For God so loved the world\n                             that he gave his only Son....\"--_John 3:16_\n\n\nThe concepts and attitudes of Mr. Clarke, Mr. Churchill, Mrs. Strait,\nMr. Knowles, and Professor Manby lead them and the rest of the church\naway from God and the world. Their clericalism, pietism, moralism,\nintellectualism, and humanism represent ways in which frightened and\ndisturbed people seek to make themselves secure. Unfortunately, however,\ntheir security then is purchased at the price of their freedom. Their\nlives become locked up in the small closet of their limited concepts.\nTheir literal and rigid understanding of the Christian church and its\nfaith makes them so loveless that their lives have an alienating effect\non others, and they themselves fail to find God.\n\n\n_Concepts About God May Be Dangerous_\n\nThey do not, nor shall we, find God in our concepts about Him or about\nHis church. He is not to be found in assertions about Him or in abstract\nbelief about His omnipotence or other attributes. God is not an idea,\nbut Being itself, and our ideas are only our concept or image of Him.\nWhen we confuse God with our ideas about Him, we are misled into\nthinking that we know what He wants, and we tend to represent and act\nfor Him uncritically. This confusion between God and our ideas about Him\nexplains why the religion of so many people lacks humility and\nreverence. It is one of the reasons why true Christian fellowship is as\nrare as it is.\n\nNot only may these ideas and concepts lead us away from God, but also\nthey may lead us out of the world and away from that encounter with the\nworld which began with the Incarnation. Separation of the church from\nthe world, its assumption that its task is to defend itself from the\nattacks of the so-called secular, its defensiveness of God in response\nto the unfaith of the world, all are symptoms of church people's lack of\nfaith in God and of their failure to understand how and where He works.\nIn other words, the otherworldliness of the church hardly harmonizes\nwith the worldliness of God, Who chose to create the world, to speak and\nact in and through it, and Who finally entered it and made the life of\nman in history His right hand. Our belief in the Incarnation and our\nunderstanding of the love of God for the world should send us, as\nchildren of God, into the world, into the so-called secular order, eager\nto participate in its meanings, and to bring them into relation with the\nmeanings of God.\n\nAs we work at this, we shall begin to experience true Christian\nfellowship, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which I understand to be\nthe fellowship of people who have the courage to live together as\npersons rather than to relate themselves to each other through their\nideas and preconceptions. Christian fellowship is living with and for\none another responsibly, that is, in love. \"If any one says, 'I love\nGod,' and hates his brother, he is a liar.\"[3] And, \"He who abides in\nlove abides in God, and God abides in him.\"[4] If we would find God,\ntherefore, and learn the meaning of life and love, we must live in the\nworld by giving ourselves to one another responsibly. It is for this\nthat the church exists. The church does not exist to save, build up, and\nadorn itself. Nor does it exist to protect or defend God. The mission of\nthe church is to participate in the reconciling dialogue between God and\nman. Here is the source of the true life of the world. Here, too, is the\nsource of the life of the church and its worship. Without this,\neverything, including worship, is false and idolatrous.\n\nThese are some of the things which Mr. Wise was trying to say to the\ngroup. He represents those in the church who see beneath the surface of\nthings and behind the distortions of conventional and defensive\nChristianity. But the question that finally emerges is: How do we free\nourselves from the distortions of our faith? What should we do?\n\n\n_We Find God at Work in the World_\n\nThe answer is simple. We should look for God in the world. We shall find\nHim in the meeting between men. \"Where two or three are gathered in my\nname, there am I in the midst of them.\"[5] And, \"gathered in my name\"\nmeans gathered in the spirit and after the character of Jesus. It does\nnot mean gathered only under special and separate religious auspices. To\nbe sure, the gatherings of God's people for worship and instruction are\nindispensable to the life of the church, but unless we translate our\nworship and instruction into action, our religious observances will be\nidolatrous and sinful, and will separate men from each other and from\nGod. So we look for God where He works; that is, in the world and\nbetween man and man.\n\nThe place where we encounter God first, in the course of our individual\nlives, is in the family. The family provides the individual with his\nfirst experience of living in relation to other persons, and this is his\nfirst experience of Christian fellowship. Immediately we are confronted\nwith the nature of God's creation and, therefore, with the revelation of\nHimself and of how He works. We are confronted with the relational\nnature of all life; for nothing exists in isolation. Everything and\nevery person finds full meaning only in relation to other things and\npersons.\n\nWe are used to thinking of persons as living in relation to persons; we\nare less accustomed to thinking of things existing in relation to other\nthings. But does not the tree exist in relation to the earth,\natmosphere, and water? And does not the hammer exist as hammer in\nrelation to the hand that uses it and the object it pounds? The only\ndifference is that persons are active participants in relationship and\nthings are passive. But things may be made active symbols or instruments\nin the meeting between man and man, as, for instance, in the case of the\nbread and wine of the Lord's Supper.\n\nGod created man to live in relation with the world of things, with\nhimself, and with his fellow men, and to live in these relationships in\nsuch a way that he will discover and grow in his relationship with God.\nThe terms \"man\" and \"relationship\" are synonymous. An old Roman proverb\nputs it, \"One man is no man at all.\" Alone we would cease to exist. We\nall have had the experience of being shut out from some important\nrelationship and we know what a desperate feeling it produces. We lose\nwhatever sense of well-being we may have had, and we begin to feel\nunwanted, depressed, and less alive. When we are warmly gathered again\ninto an important group, we begin to come alive. Our blood runs faster,\nand we know the joy of life again. It is almost as though we had been\nresurrected. The sense of being a part, the experience of fellowship,\nmakes the difference between life and death. I once visited in a home\nwhere a teen-age girl was having one of her frequent \"tragic\" love\nexperiences. The boy she was currently dating had not called her up for\nthree days. She was full of gloom, moped around the house, and lost her\nusual interest in everything. One evening the phone rang and the call\nwas for her. First we heard her laugh, and then she burst into the room\nfull of gaiety and enthusiasm. You would not have known her for the same\ngirl. Alone and rejected, as she thought, she was dead. Restored to\nrelationship, she came alive again. We may smile patronizingly at the\nemotional excesses of this teen-age girl, but on the other hand we\nunderstand deeply the fundamental meaning of her experience.\n\nThe patterns of relationship begin with our birth. We would not survive\nif the whole community, centering in the basic function of the mother,\ndid not assume responsibility for us. Our dependence upon her for food\nand care is the occasion for the beginning of relationship. And both the\ninfant and the mother have their part to play. She moves as a person\ntoward her child with the gifts of her milk and of her love. The infant,\non his side, in random and non-specific ways, calls out to her. He cries\nand makes his simple movements. She responds to his cries with her care.\nHe responds to her care by sleeping and waking, by crying and cooing.\nAnd thus begins the dialogical nature of relationship.\n\n\n_Relationship Is Dialogue_\n\nRelationship is dialogue. Dialogue occurs when one person addresses\nanother person and the other person responds. It is a two-way process in\nwhich two or more people discuss meanings that concern them. To whatever\ndegree one part of the dialogue is lost, to that degree the relationship\nceases to exist. A marriage, for instance, ceases to exist, except in\nform, only when either one of the partners ceases to communicate with\nthe other, and the quality of address and response is lost. Likewise,\ntrue religion disappears when it represents only what God says and\neliminates the meaning of man's response. Religious dogma is sometimes\nused to shackle human creativity, and the form of belief is allowed to\nstifle the vitality of faith. Similarly, religion disappears when the\naddress to God and the response of God are eliminated. The Pharisee in\nJesus' parable had lost the dialogical quality of his prayer because he\n\"stood and prayed thus with himself....\"[6] He was not speaking to God\nand he expected no response, with the result that his religion lost its\ndialogical quality since he was separated from God by his\nself-righteousness. This dialogical quality is indispensable to creative\nliving. It is out of the dialogical encounter that the individual\nemerges.\n\nOnly by the process of dialogical teaching can children really learn.\nThe relationship between parent and child is not one-sided. The child\nmay protest against the authority of the parent. This is the child's\npart of the dialogue. The parent may recognize his child's need to find\nhimself as an autonomous person by making allowance for his protest and\nexercise of freedom. The next stage in the dialogue between them is the\nreassurance which the child experiences and reflects in his behavior in\nresponse to his parent's affirmation of him as a person. He may show\nthis by a more realistic acceptance of the parent's authority. This in\nturn may reassure the parent, so that he feels more relaxed in the\nexercise of his authority. Gradually the parent and the child begin to\nexperience a more mature relationship with each other.\n\n\n_We Are Responsible for Each Other_\n\nBecause of the dialogical nature of relationship, we have responsibility\nfor one another. Each of us has a responsibility to call forth the other\nas a person, and each needs to be called forth since none of us will\ndevelop automatically. We call forth one another in the same way that\nthe conductor of an orchestra calls forth the powers of his musicians\nand the potentialities of their instruments. And they respond by calling\nforth the interpretive genius of their conductor. Each draws out the\npowers of the other.\n\nThe potentialities for development are inherent in us, but we need the\nwarmth and stimulation of other persons. This is certainly true in the\ncase of the newly born. The role of parents and teachers is to call\nforth and welcome the personal responses and initiatives of their\nchildren. This is also true of those who, because of the pressures of\nlife, start to unfold as persons but then withdraw in order to protect\nthemselves from further hurt. Here again, parents and teachers, pastors\nand counselors, and indeed all men, from time to time, are obliged to\ncall forth some soul who is either in hiding or in retreat.\n\nThis role is easy to see in our relation with children, because\nchildren's responses are sometimes so uncomplicated that the process we\nare talking about is clearly revealed. Susie, feeling that an injustice\nhad been done her, retreated to her room and withdrew into herself.\nAfter seeing that she would need help in order to come to herself again,\nher mother finally asked her if she would like to help her bake a cake.\nSoon Susie and her mother were chatting happily together in the kitchen\ndoing something that Susie loved to do whenever her mother had time to\nhelp her. During the course of their conversation, the mother had an\nopportunity to help Susie understand the situation that had upset her.\nAs a result, Susie emerged out of the situation more mature and\nresourceful.\n\nI once knew a bus driver who discovered that he, too, could call forth\npeople by the way in which he greeted them and did business with them.\nOn his morning runs he observed that many people were grumpy and sullen,\nand treated him and their fellow passengers discourteously. At first his\ninclination was to respond in the same way. Then he discovered that by\ntaking the initiative and greeting his passengers with a smile and\ncordial word, and by making change cheerfully and being patient with\ntheir grumpiness, the spirit of his passengers underwent a\ntransformation. Over the years a number of people told him how grateful\nthey were for his good cheer. They said that his influence had often\nbeen decisive in their lives. It had affected their relations with other\npeople. Thus, his attitude toward people and his method of relating\nhimself to them as a driver of a bus became his ministry; and since he\nwas a member of the church, the church's ministry reached out and worked\nthrough that bus driver into the lives of many who may never have come\nanywhere near the church. Through such relationships. God is present and\nactive in the world.\n\nThe relationship between man and man, therefore, not only is important\nto men, but also is a part of God's plan for the reconciliation of the\nworld unto Himself. It is given to us for our own sakes and also for the\naccomplishment of God's purposes. Unfortunately, however, our relating\nto one another often is hurtful because of our anxiety and insecurity.\nWe may attack others in order to make ourselves feel secure. Instead of\ncalling them forth, we cause them to withdraw. Even when we undertake to\nlove others, we may do it in ways that hurt them, because we love them\nfor selfish reasons. Human relationships, in themselves, are ambiguous,\nand we need deliverance from the ambiguity of them, for these\nrelationships can either destroy people or call them forth.\n\n\n_Human Love Is Ambiguous_\n\nFurthermore, because human love can be ambiguous, we do not know whether\nit is safe to give and accept love. It is a risk both to love and to\naccept love, and all of us, to some degree, are afraid to take the risk.\nSome people, to be sure, have more courage for it than others. They love\nmore courageously, and are more courageous in their acceptance of\nothers' love. These people seem to have a power of being that others\nlack.\n\nThe giving and receiving of love implies responsibility for one another,\nand we may withhold our love and reject the love of others as a way of\nevading the responsibility of love. We are willing to love up to the\npoint where it begins to be inconvenient to love any more. We like the\nimage of ourselves as loved and loving people, but we would like the\nbenefit without the responsibilities of the role. When the response to\nour love presents us with demands, we may begin to hold people off. We\nmay say: \"Yes, to be sure, I love you, but keep your distance. I am\nwilling to give of myself, but not too much. I need to keep something of\nme for myself.\" By this attitude we are admitting that when we love\nanother we have to give ourselves to him, entrust ourselves to him.\nCommitment to another person is a courageous act, and it is no wonder\nthat we sometimes recoil from it.\n\nWhat has been said about giving love is equally true of accepting love,\nfor the acceptance of love also calls for trust and commitment. If I\nreally respond to your love, I will open myself to the possibility of\nbeing hurt because your love cannot be completely trusted. Furthermore,\nif you should really love me, I am not worthy of your love and I do not\nwelcome the judgment of me that is implicit in your love. I shall,\ntherefore, make a cautious response to you and give myself to you\nguardedly. Then the person who is giving love is made lonely because his\ngift is not accepted. He, too, begins to withdraw and to dole out his\nlove, which in turn increases the anxiety of the one to whom it is being\ngiven. This is an aspect of human fellowship which we need to recognize\nbefore we talk much about Christian fellowship. Human fellowship is both\nheroic and tragic; it is both renewing and destructive; it is both\nhealing and hurtful, but it is indispensable to life. This is our human\npredicament.\n\nSomething is needed to cut into the ambiguity of human love. And this is\nwhat Christ does. He draws the confused currents of human love into the\nunifying stream of divine love, thus making possible a new relationship.\nAs the apostle Paul makes clear, we become new creatures in Christ, and\nas such, a part of a new creation.[7]\n\nHaving considered some of the characteristics of human love and\nfellowship, let us now look at Christian love and fellowship. One word\nof caution is needed before we begin. The fellowship of Christian men\nand women will still have its human look, but something new has been\nadded that makes a difference. What is it? How shall we describe the new\nrelationship?\n\n\n_What Is Christian Fellowship?_\n\nChristian fellowship is the relation of men and women who, by the power\nof the Holy Spirit, participate in the life and work of Christ.\nChristian living is participation in the continued living of Christ\nthrough the activity of His Spirit. This concept stands in sharp\ncontrast to the ones held by the church members described in the first\nchapter. The source of the Christian's life is not knowledge about God\nor even our historical remembrance of His incarnate life, although they\ncontribute to it. Neither is it to be found in a determined imitation of\nChrist's life, although that effort also will help. Nor is it in the\ngood will of man which, along with his power of love, is likewise found\nto be ambiguous. No, the true source of the Christian life and of the\nChristian relationship is the incarnation of His Spirit in the lives of\nmen. The presence and working of His Spirit transforms our own spirit\nand provides a new dynamic for our living. This does not mean that we\ncease to be human; the old conflicts are still there and the old battles\nmust continue to be fought, but a new power of being and of love is\ngiven to us by the indwelling Spirit.\n\nJust now we referred to the incarnation of His Spirit in us. The concept\nof incarnation is an ancient one in Christianity, and represents the\nembodiment of God in the human form of the historic Jesus, Who\nparticipated in the life of man as man in order that man, through Him,\nmight participate in the Being of God. What happened is known to us all.\nThe incarnation produced the life of Jesus, His death, resurrection, and\nthe coming of His Spirit. These are not once-for-all historic events as\nwas the life of Julius Caesar or of George Washington. Through Him a new\npower of love was released into life that continues unto this day. B.C.\nand A.D. are not merely a way of dividing time, but are our way of\nacknowledging that in the life of Jesus of Nazareth something radically\ndifferent entered into life, a new dynamic that changed the nature of\ncreation. We participate in the historic incarnation of Jesus of\nNazareth which took place 1900 years ago by the daily incarnations of\nHis Spirit in our individual lives and in the life of the people of God.\nAnd since His incarnation meant God's entry into the world, so likewise\nthe indwelling of His Spirit in us also should mean God's entry into our\nworld and into its conflicts and issues.\n\nWe are Christians by doing what He did in the world, which was to have a\ncare and a responsibility for others. His Spirit seeks to incarnate\nHimself in the day-to-day decisions of every responsible person in every\nsphere of his living. Thus the mother not only serves God by her\ndecisions and actions in the home, but through these same decisions and\nactions she may believe that God is present and accomplishing His\npurposes for her and for the members of her family. So, likewise, a\nbusinessman's sphere of Christian action is carried out in the decisions\nand work of his business, but also he may believe that in and through\nthese same decisions and work God seeks to accomplish His purpose. So\nthe principle of incarnation means that God is both served and met at\nthe points of decision and responsibility of our daily lives. And this\nis what it means to participate in His life by the power of His Spirit,\nto bear the true mark of the Christian.\n\nIn the context of these thoughts, we may now look at the three parts of\nthe earthly life of Jesus Christ, and, as we examine them, the idea of\nparticipating in His life may become clearer.\n\n\n_Participation in the Life of Christ_\n\nFirst of all, there is His earthly life, the life of the man Jesus, Whom\nwe call Lord and Savior, the Christ. This life gives us the picture of\nwhat God meant man to be. Here is the perfect portrait of God's\ncreation--man. It as a stirring picture and we love to look at it,\ncontemplate it, read about it. It is a dull mind and heart that does not\nquicken in response to His amazing compassion and strength; and as we\nstudy his instructions to us, it becomes clear that He expects us to be\nto our generation what He was to His.\n\nWhen we realize what His teaching and commandment require of us, our\nsense of the beauty and simplicity of His life is overshadowed by the\nterror aroused in us by His expectation of us. We know that the ugliness\nof our lives can never reproduce the beauty of His. From a human point\nof view, the imitation of Christ is a complete impossibility, and one\nwonders how so many Christians can go on, generation after generation,\nthinking that this is their task and that they can accomplish it. Yet it\nis clear that He expects us to be members of His body and to do His work\nin our time. Is it possible that He asked us to do something that is\nbeyond our powers of accomplishment? If this is so, then far from being\nSavior, He is one of the most cruel of men. There must be some other\nanswer.\n\nThe answer, of course, is that Christ did not leave us alone to carry\nout His commandments, summed up in the great commandment: \"You shall\nlove the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and\nwith all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as\nyourself.\"[8] He understood only too well the ambiguity of our lives.\nHow understanding He was of vacillating Peter, and yet He called him the\nRock. Had Peter possessed any self-understanding, he must have wondered\nwhy his Lord gave him that name. But after the resurrection and the\ncoming of the Holy Spirit, Peter became the Rock, because then he\nincarnated the Spirit of his Lord. As with Peter, so with us. The\npresence of the Spirit makes possible an imitation of Christ. Now we\ncan read the Gospels without dread, and not as patterns for us to\nimitate literally and slavishly. The New Testament provides the\nunderstandings that help us to test whether or not we are responding to\nHis Spirit and letting Him accomplish His work in and through us. Thus,\nlike Peter, we may become rocks, incarnating the Spirit of our Lord.\n\nNor do we need to be embarrassed by our humanity. We begin to sense that\nwe cannot be Christian without first being human, which means that we\nshall be both loving and hostile, both righteous and sinful, both\ncourageous and cowardly, both dependable and vacillating. We are in the\nworld and of the world as other men are, and we share the lot of human\nexistence. But in addition, we have been given the spirit of power and\nlove and self-control, not that we may be condescending toward the\nworld, or try to regulate it as if it were a recalcitrant child, but\nthat we may be embodiments of the Spirit of God in human affairs through\nwhom He may accomplish His purposes in the world. In the process,\nbecause His Spirit is in us, men will know that they have seen Jesus.\n\nThus we may come to understand the life of the people of God, and to\nfind therein a basis for a true evangelism; and thus we may participate\nin the life and teaching of Christ, which are at once our ideal and\npattern of living, and at the same time our judgment.\n\n\n_Participation in the Crucifixion_\n\nSince the life of the Christian is participation in his own time in the\nlife of Christ, he must participate also in the crucifixion and death of\nhis Lord, which were a part of His life. Christ's crucifixion and death\nwere a natural consequence of His teaching and of the way in which He\nlived. The acceptance of the unacceptable, the loving of the unlovable,\ninevitably produces the necessity of the Cross, which itself must be\nchosen and accepted if the life of love is to be triumphant.\n\nWe would like to evade this part of Christian living, if that were\npossible. The Cross and all that it represents is the part of the\nChristian gospel that we would prefer to skip. The lives of church\npeople reveal only too clearly how much they wish it were possible to\nmove directly from the contemplation of the ideal to its actualization,\nand to bypass the experience of crucifixion and its meaning for us.\nLovers, for example, would like to move from the contemplation of the\nromantic ideal of their love to its realization in their lives. But the\nfull meaning of their love cannot become available to them except as\nthey pass through the challenges and crises of their relationship and\ndie to themselves for the sake of the other. Nor can anyone master a\nskill or a field of study except as he moves from the vision of what he\n_might_ do, to its realization through the path of self-discipline,\nwhich is a kind of dying to himself and to other values which he might\nchoose and cultivate.\n\nJesus Christ affirmed by His teaching and life this principle of\ndisciplined self-giving. If we would be partakers of His resurrection,\nwe must be willing to be buried with Him in His death. We are expected\nto show forth His death till He comes, and we do this by dying daily. In\none sense, the life of the Christian is a life of dying. Being buried\nwith Christ in His death is symbolized in the act of baptism, especially\nwhen it is administered by immersion and accompanied with such a\nScripture verse as, \"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into\ndeath, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the\nFather, we too might walk in newness of life.\"[9] In other words we have\nto expect the pain of our relationships and accept the responsibility of\nthem for the sake of the glory in them that may be revealed later. We\nare to accept the unacceptable in ourselves and in others, because on\nthe cross Christ accepted the unacceptable in all men. This is what\nproduced the Cross. And so He died, bearing the sin of man while He\nperfectly fulfilled His own teaching; that is, He was perfectly obedient\nto the full meaning of love. We too have to die daily to our desire for\npeace at any price, to our desire to work out convenient and comfortable\ncompromises, and to our desire to be God and to have things run our own\nway. Thus, we come to realize the meaning of His words, \"Whoever loses\nhis life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.\"[10]\n\nThe Christian fellowship, therefore, is the fellowship of men and\nwomen who accept dying as a part of living, and who are not surprised\nby the presence in human relations of selfishness, betrayals,\nmisrepresentations, hostility, and all other violations of the ideal.\nWhen we meet these things, we should not run away, or pretend that such\nconditions do not exist. Instead, we should face these hostile and\nnegative human responses with courage. Because we are participating in\nthe life of our Lord, we may move through these experiences, knowing\nthat nothing can really separate us from the love of God which seeks to\nmake itself known in and through our relations with one another. We may\ntrust that if we accept the pain that we have in our relations with one\nanother and are obedient to the spirit of the love that seeks to reunite\nman with man, we may emerge on the farther side of the painful\nexperience with relationships that are richer, deeper, and stronger than\nthey were before.\n\nAn excellent illustration of this principle is to be found in Tennessee\nWilliams' play, _Cat on a Hot Tin Roof_, the point of which many people\nmiss because of what they regard to be the vulgarity, profanity, and\nlicentiousness of its characters. In the play, Brock, the son, evaded\nhis problems with himself, his father, his wife, and his work through an\nexcessive use of alcohol. His father, Big Daddy, in his rough, profane\nway was greatly concerned about his son. Finally, in a tremendous scene\nbetween Big Daddy and Brock, the father pursued his son through every\nkind of evasion and rationalization in a determined effort to break\nthrough to his heart. Nothing that Brock could say to his father was\nsufficient to cause Big Daddy to turn away. He could easily have\nabandoned his sick boy and evaded the pain of what he was trying to do.\nInstead, he hammered at the door of Brock's life with a love that was\nwilling to accept every rejection that his son could offer. And he did\nnot give up. Finally, he broke through, reached his boy, and brought him\nback to his life with his family and his work. Because he was willing to\ndie to himself and every comfortable impulse. Big Daddy was freed to be\nthe instrument of a saving love. Here was a dramatic portrayal of the\ntruth which our Lord not only taught but exemplified, and which He would\nlike to see reproduced in the lives of all of us.\n\nIncidentally, it is ironical that so many Christian people missed the\nreal message of this play because they were so easily offended by that\nwhich is not pretty in human life. It is a shame that we would rather be\npretty than redemptive. We seem to place respectability above salvation.\nChristians ought to be able to see through and behind the dirty and\nsinful ways in which people live, and recognize them as symptoms of a\nspiritual condition that calls for that which God is trying to give them\nthrough us. It is tragic that some would-be Christians, like Mrs.\nStrait, become so moralistic that they condemn rather than help people.\nChrist could see behind the suffering of men, behind their sins, and He\nwas not distracted by what they did. He was concerned for men first and\nfor their behavior last. He knew that if He could reach the man, the\nbehavior would take care of itself. We are supposed to be like Him, men\nand women who, because His Spirit indwells us and because we participate\nin His living and dying, are able to see the hearts of other men and\nwomen and to unite them with the power of God's love and forgiveness.\n\n\n_Participation in the Resurrection_\n\nThis kind of living would bring us to our third participation in the\nlife of Christ, namely, in His resurrection. Because He was faithful to\nHis love and willing to die in obedience to its demand, He was raised up\nin triumph, and with Him all things were made new. These were the events\nof His life. But His life affirms the principle of God's life as it is\nlived in human existence. Since His Spirit incarnates itself in us, then\nwe may expect that our lives will be triumphant also and be the source\nof renewal for others. Another criticism that we can make of Christians\nis that they do not have this sense of expectancy, this sense of\ndeliverance, this sense of triumph, and this appearance of having been\nrenewed. All too often we are grim and sad, discouraged and cynical, and\nour lives contradict the faith we profess.\n\nHowever, because we participate in His resurrection, we are given the\nwonderful power of facing any problem with courage, even though it may\nseem, from a human point of view, that no solution is possible. We live\nin the faith that if we consent to be buried with Christ in His death,\nwe shall be made partakers of His resurrection. And this, not in the\nhereafter, but now, in this present life.\n\nA father told me of an incident with his son that illustrates the\nprinciple we are now considering. He and his son had become involved in\na quarrel and both had lost their tempers. The father confessed that he\nhad said some harsh and cruel things to his boy. Finally, however, he\ncame to himself, realized what he was doing, and, dying to his pride, he\nacknowledged his fault and asked his son's forgiveness. When the\nexchange was over, the boy was still rather subdued, but later when he\ncame through the room where his father was seated, he called out\ncheerily, \"Hi, Pop.\" The cheerful greeting of the son was a sign of the\ntriumphant relationship between father and son, and, in the human\nrelationship, the father was participating in the resurrection of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nIn other words, our participation in the life, death, and resurrection\nof Christ will give us courage, faith, and hope. This way of life will\nnot save us from the pain of human living, nor will it save us from\ngoing through dark times of indecision and lack of faith. We shall,\nhowever, be able to live our lives out of the power of the triumphant\nlife that God lived in human life.\n\nOur worship is yet another way in which we participate in the life,\ndeath, and resurrection of our Lord. In worship we bring our lives to\nthe judgment of Christ's teaching and life, and these reveal how unequal\nwe are to live His life, and how greatly we need His Spirit to transform\nour lives. By our confession of our sins we participate in His death for\nus and for our sins, and the assurance of His forgiveness enables us to\nparticipate in His resurrection so that we may rise to our feet, make a\nconfident offering of ourselves, and sing our praises of thanksgiving.\n\nThe Christian, we conclude, is one in whom the Spirit of Christ is\nincarnate. By the power of the Spirit he participates in the life of\nChrist, so that the presence of Christ and His Spirit has contemporary\npower and meaning in the arena of human relations. The love of God is\nfor the world, and this world-love of God should be reflected in the\ndevotion of His people to His work in the world.\n\n   [3] 1 John 4:20.\n   [4] 1 John 4:16.\n   [5] Matt. 18:20.\n   [6] Luke 18:11.\n   [7] See 2 Cor. 5:17.\n   [8] Luke 10:27.\n   [9] Rom. 6:4; See also Col. 2:12.\n  [10] Mark 8:35.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nHEREIN IS LOVE\n\n    \"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and\n               he who loves is born of God and knows God.\"--_1 John 4:7_\n\n\nThus far, we have identified the Christian life as participation in the\nlife of Christ, and the Christian fellowship as the relationship of men\nwho have been reunited to one another by the presence in them of the\nSpirit of Christ. We need to make this concept even more specific and,\ntherefore, now ask the question: \"How does one participate in the life\nof Christ; how does one find the Spirit; what must one do?\" The gospel's\nanswer is: \"You shall love.\"[11] It has surpassing attraction, but is\nalso considerably disappointing. Love is appealing, but its practice is\nappallingly difficult. While the Christian relationship seems to promise\na difference, it is hard to identify. What makes the difference? or,\nWhat is the Good News?\n\n\n_The Gift of God in Christ_\n\nChristians believe that the gift of God in Christ confers something that\nman needs but has lost. What is it that we do not have that we are\nsupposed to receive as a result of our new relationship with Christ? Let\nus recall that in our earlier discussion we took note of the ambivalent\ncharacter of love. We want to be loved and we are afraid to accept love;\nwe want to love and are afraid to give love for fear it will not be\naccepted. We are not free to love, therefore; that which by nature we\ncannot have is the freedom to love. We believe that God is love.\nCreation is the work of His love, and love is the work of His creation.\nBut the ambivalences of human nature keep us from being free in the work\nof love. The coming of Christ, in the midst of history, changed the\nbalance of power between love and hate, life and death, and set us free\nto love. Love became the energizing, reconciling force in human\nexistence. B.C. and A.D. marked the transition, not only of time, but\nalso of the old creation in which our power of love was imprisoned in\nour fear to love, and of the new creation in which our power of love was\nset free by the love of God in Christ. Now the triumphant power of God's\nlove is at work in the world and is available to all who seek to do the\nwork of love anywhere and for anyone. Accordingly, the work of love was\nand is the breaking down of walls of separation, and the reuniting of\nman and God, man and man, and man with himself, in all which work we\nparticipate.\n\n\n_What Is Love?_\n\nDo we know what we mean when we think of love in this way? A clear\nunderstanding of love is needed, because it is so gravely misunderstood\nin our time. All too commonly, love is regarded as a sentiment, a\nfeeling, a \"liking\" for someone. While sentiment and emotion are\ncertainly a part of love, it is tragic to make them synonymous with\nlove. Certainly we mean more than that when we say, \"God is love,\" or\nwhen we wrestle with the concept of man showing his love of God through\nhis love for his neighbor. In these concepts we are thinking of love as\nthe moving, creating, healing power of life; of love that is \"the moving\npower of everything toward everything else that is.\"[12] Love reunites\nlife with life, person with person, and as such is not easily\ndiscouraged. The most dramatic symbol of love's courage and triumph is,\nas we have seen, the cross and the resurrection; it stands for the love\nwherewith God has loved us. \"In this is love, not that we loved God but\nthat he loved us....\"[13] Having given us His love, we have it for our\nresponse to Him, so that we love Him by loving one another with His love\nwhich we received through His people. Thus, the nurturing of our\nresponse to God's love is the work of the church. Our responsibility is\nto love Him. We are to love God by loving one another, and in loving one\nanother we introduce one another to God. This is the work of the church\nand the vocation of the people of God. We are called to love one another\nreunitingly with the love wherewith God loved us.\n\nIn order for us to participate in the love of God which is at work in\nthe world, we need to understand ourselves and our own creaturely\nproblems in relation to love. Too much Christian thought about love and\nits work is abstract rather than a reckoning with the complications of\nhuman existence. In order to avoid this danger, let us turn to a\nconsideration of what is involved in recovering our freedom to love.\n\n\n_Recovering Our Freedom to Love_\n\nBecause we are created in the image of God, our deepest need is to be\nloved. This need is fundamental and has both human and divine roots. The\nbaby comes into being as a result of being loved. We take him in our\narms, care for him, call him by name, and reveal to him the love that we\nhave for him. Thus he experiences love. These experiences of love\nstimulate, in turn, his love, which is the completion of his need of\nlove. His response to being loved is to love, and this response is not\nlong in coming. We see it in his smiles, in his cooing, when he pats his\nmother's cheek, when he puts his little arms around her neck, and later\nwhen he begins to toddle and bring his gifts to her. In many ways the\nindividual begins to show that he has been loved by revealing his\ngrowing power to love.\n\nOur day, however, seems to be one in which people are more conscious of\ntheir need to be loved than of their need to love, with the result that\neveryone is running around looking for love. But we do not find love by\nlooking for it; we find it by giving it. And when we find love by\nloving, we find God. Our Lord gave us His love generously, not in order\nthat we might be loved, but that we might be freed to love one another.\n\"You received without pay, give without pay.\"[14] He calls us from our\nchildish preoccupations with security to the appropriate adult\noccupations of the mature Christian. He calls us away from our suckling\ntendencies to our responsibility to feed others, from receiving to\ngiving. If someone came to me and asked, \"How can I find God?\" I would\nanswer, \"Go find someone to love and you'll find Him.\"\n\nUnless the searcher was love-deprived and in need of reassurance, I\nwould not begin by figuratively putting my arm around him and cherishing\nhim. There are situations where this is necessary. People can be so\nbroken and so hurt that they cannot love, and they need to be cherished\nand reassured until they can. One of the responsibilities of the church\nis to be on the alert for those people who in later life need the love\nand reassurance they should have had when they were younger.\nUnfortunately, however, many of us are embarrassed when we are\nconfronted by emotionally needy persons. We may resent their need and\nthe demand which it makes on us, with the result that they may never\nknow the love of man and God, and may never be brought to the point\nwhere they may participate in the life and work of Christ which is, as\nwe have seen, to love.\n\nOf course, it is not easy to love, especially when we feel unequal to\nit, are tempted to regress, and want to be loved and cuddled ourselves.\nYet even then the answer to our need is to love. Many of us have had\nexperiences that have borne out this truth. Once when my son and I had\nhad a quarrel in which I had lost my temper, and was feeling discouraged\nas a father and not at all competent where human relations were\nconcerned, the phone rang and a young couple asked if they might come\nand talk with me about the difficulty they were having with their young\nson. Because of my feelings of wretched inadequacy, my inclination was\nto say \"No,\" but they were so obviously in need of help and so\nimportunate that I arranged for them to come to see me immediately. I\nhad no confidence in being able to help them, but I did try to listen to\nthem. As I listened, I participated in their thinking about their own\nsituation. When the session was over, they thanked me enthusiastically\nfor my help. After they were gone, I realised that however much I had\nhelped them, I myself had been helped. By accepting my responsibilities\nas a counselor and by listening to them, I was loving them; and because\nI loved them, I had the experience of being loved. The relationship in\nwhich our love is needed may offer little apparent encouragement, but\nonce we give ourselves, the resources for the work of love become\navailable.\n\nIt is, therefore, as important for us to love as it is for us to be\nloved, and our need to love is as great as the need to be loved. If we\nare not able to love, life is as deficient as it would have been if we\nhad not been loved. We must not assume that because we have been loved\nwe shall automatically become a person who loves. Human beings do not\ndevelop that automatically. Certainly the experience of being loved\nprepares us to love, but we can misuse the gifts of love. We may decide\nto appropriate them for ourselves. We may not want to assume\nresponsibility for others. But having received love and choosing not to\nlove, we may lose such love as we have. We then become self-centered and\nselfish misers of love, and therefore loveless.\n\nHow can we love our children so that they will become givers of love\nrather than hoarders of it? How can the freedom and power to love be\nreleased in them? The answer is, by encouraging their love responses. We\nhave already recognized the importance, first, of the need to be loved,\nand second, of the need to love. We now face the importance of our being\nable to accept love and of encouraging the attempts of people, and\nespecially of our children, to express their love. We might assume that\nit is easy to welcome their responses. Unfortunately, our expressions of\nlove do not always please those to whom we make them. Because our love\nofferings are not appreciated and accepted, we may feel unloved and\nrejected. After repeated attempts to express our love successfully, and\nhaving been repeatedly rejected and discouraged, we may give up and turn\nour love in on ourselves.\n\nA rose gardener told me of an instance that illustrates how difficult it\nis to accept some love offerings. He not only grew roses, but exhibited\nthem as well. On one occasion, he had several blooms that he was\nnurturing for a coming show, one of which was being produced on a bush\nof his favorite variety. On the day before the exhibit his four-year-old\nson appeared before him with ecstatic face and with his prize rose\nclutched stemless in his hand, saying, \"Look Daddy, what I brought you.\"\nIt was obvious that the youngster, who adored his father, thought that\nhe was presenting the perfect gift of his love, because he knew how much\nhis father liked that particular rose. The father, on the other hand,\nconfessed that he responded as the rose grower and exhibitor, rather\nthan as one who had an opportunity to encourage his son's love responses\nby recognizing, from his son's point of view, the appropriateness of\nthe gift. When, therefore, he very understandably scolded and spanked\nhis child for picking the rose, the little boy was dreadfully upset.\nEpisodes of this kind, if only occasional, are not serious, because they\nare experienced in the context of a relationship that is predominantly\nloving, supportive, and encouraging.\n\nWhen the expressions of love and affection of children are not received\nwith understanding and acceptance, their attempts to learn to love find\nno encouragement. Because they are being prevented from learning to love\ntheir parents and others, they are being prevented also from learning to\nlove God in and through them. Our Lord's response to the gifts brought\nto Him demonstrates the kind of responses we should make to one another.\nEven when people's gifts were poorly motivated and ill-chosen, He was\nable to look behind them and see and understand the person who gave.\nAlthough Zacchaeus seemed to be motivated only by curiosity, our Lord\ninvited him to come down out of the tree and asked that He might have\ndinner with him, thus moving behind the greed that had made Zacchaeus a\npublican.[15] And because our Lord was able to accept the gift of Mary\nMagdalene, her true love was called forth.[16] So it is with us. Our\nofferings often are pitiful and ill-chosen, but He looks upon the heart\nand sees there that really we are trying to express our love despite our\nill-chosen means of doing so.\n\nIf we are to participate in the life of Christ and be the instruments of\nHis love, we must learn to be hospitable to one another's efforts to\nexpress love. Parents need to look upon the hearts of their children and\nsee deeply what they are trying to express. Husbands and wives likewise\nneed to look behind the externals of behavior. What we do on the outside\noften fails to represent truly and adequately what is on the inside. We\nall need encouragement to love, and hospitality toward human attempts to\nexpress love is one of the surest ways in which we can participate in\nthe contemporary living of Christ in the world.\n\n\n_Some Disciplines of Love_\n\nNow there are some disciplines that we need to follow as we engage in\nthe dialogue of love. First, there is the discipline of giving oneself.\nIt is the discipline of keeping oneself responsible for and to one\nanother, responsible in facing issues and in making decisions. The only\nway to love is to communicate love by word and action. We may learn to\nuse our power of being to speak and act the word of love. We should\nrefuse to withhold it for any reason, including our fear of speaking it.\nOf course, there is risk in giving ourselves. Our gift of love may not\nbe accepted, may not be appreciated, and may even be exploited. In\ngiving love we may be hurt because of the nature of others' responses.\nBut we will be stronger for having given it, and others may be called\nforth by it. Life cannot remain the same when love has been expressed.\n\nSecond, there is the discipline of holding ourselves to our own part.\nThis is the discipline of allowing others to speak for themselves; or\nagain, the discipline of refraining from trying to carry on both sides\nof a dialogue. We are always doing this; that is, we speak to the image\nwe have of the other person. We try to anticipate his response and take\naway his freedom to respond and speak for himself. We choose our part of\nthe dialogue in response to what we think his reaction will be and\nthereby rob ourselves of our freedom to be. There can be no\ncommunication between the images which two people hold of each other.\nCommunication is possible only between two persons who, out of mutual\nrespect, really address one another.\n\nA third discipline is to accept the demand in love and our obligation to\nmeet that demand. The compulsive element in love is hard for us to\naccept. But we cannot separate law from love. Law is implicit in love.\nOur Lord, Who is the incarnation of divine love, warned that He would\nnot remove one bit of the law. He did not destroy the law, but by His\nlove fulfilled it. It is really good that law is a part of love. Our own\nlove relationships benefit from the presence of law in love, because law\nguides and protects our relationship. When we are \"in love,\" or in\nunion with one another, we are not conscious of the law, but it is\nimplicitly present. We can be said to be \"living above the law.\"\n\nThe law that is implicit in the relationship between a man and a woman\nwho love each other is that they shall respect and act trustworthily in\nrelation to one another; that they shall care for one another in all the\nways that are necessary to their relationship. As long as love prevails,\nthey are not conscious of this law. They do not need it. But if for any\nreason they should \"fall out of\" love, then they become conscious of\ntheir obligations to each other. Their relationship is now lived under\nthe burden of law, and they will find it harder to observe than they did\nbefore. They now are being held together by their obligations, and it\nmay be that while being thus held together they will again find each\nother in love. When they look back on this period some years later, they\nmay call the whole experience love, because then they will see that the\nobligations of their relationship are a part of their love. Obviously,\nthis is mature and not infantile love. Love that accepts responsibility\nand its obligations is love that is not primarily concerned about its\nprivileges, although it gives thanks for whatever privileges it has. It\nrecognizes itself not primarily as an emotion, but as a way of life; and\nit is more concerned about commitment than sensation.\n\nBy the employment of these principles that we have just rehearsed, we\ncan help our children grow in their capacity to love and thereby become\nmore capable of a heroic commitment to one another. This kind of\ncommitment should characterize the members of the Christian fellowship,\nthe men and women in whose lives the Spirit of the Christ is incarnate.\n\nWe have seen that we need to be loved in order that we may love others\nand that we should encourage one another's love responses. Does this\nmean that our attempts to express love should be accepted without\ncorrection? What should the rose-growing father of the little boy have\ndone? One view is that the father should have accepted the gift with\nthanks, recognizing only the child's intention. Certainly, his\nintentions should be honored and his gift accepted. But the boy also\nneeded help in learning how to express his love to others. Here is\nsomething we are always having to learn. All of us have had the\nexperience of doing or giving something that was intended to be an\nexpression of our love, only to discover that the gift was not\nappreciated by the one to whom it was given, and we find ourselves\nsaying, \"Oh, I didn't mean it to be that way.\" With children and with\none another we need to strike a balance between acceptance of the\nintention and guidance in choosing the means for the expression of love.\nLoving is an art, and we all need to learn the art and to refine its\npractice. One would expect Christians and church people, who are\nsupposed to be incarnations of the spirit of love, to be masters of the\nart. Yet, to the world, we often appear to be ungracious people. So let\nus learn to love one another, and let us train our children in the\npractice of the art of love, by encouraging and disciplining them in it.\n\nIf a text for this responsibility were needed, we might take it from the\nancient liturgical language of the church in which we say, \"We receive\nthis person into the congregation of Christ's flock,\" which should mean\nthat we receive the person into the congregation of persons in whom the\nlove of Christ is incarnate.\n\n\n_The Language of Words and Life_\n\nUnfortunately, however, we often use the words that suggest the right\nmeaning but fail to carry out that meaning in our lives. All too easily\nour religious statements become empty forms, separated from the vitality\nand meaning which they are supposed to express. Remember, for instance,\nhow vainly we sometimes say the Lord's Prayer, which is a form that our\nLord gave us, by means of which we could express the vitality of our\nrelationship with God and one another. Likewise, we can honor and use\nthe correct verbal and other symbols about the church and Christian\nfellowship, its rites and ceremonies, and yet fail to translate them\ninto action, with the result that our rites and ceremonies and\ndoctrinal statements become dry, empty forms. Instead of being the means\nof new life, they may only disappoint people, because they do not really\ncommunicate the meaning that they seem to promise. Every church should\nalways test whether its forms are really expressive of the truth which\nit professes. It is not enough that we speak the truth; we must live it.\n\nIt has been given to men to communicate both by word and by the life\nthat is lived. There must always be a vital relation between the meaning\nthat is being communicated in the word and the form or means of its\ncommunication. The breakdown of education and of religion occurs when\nthere is a breakdown between the human experience with its meaning and\nthe word which represents it. This breakdown is complete when speaking\nthe word becomes a substitute for living its meaning. This breakdown\nalso occurs when a culture undertakes to educate by means of words and\nconcepts only, and neglects to employ what happens between man and man\nas an integral and indispensable part of the curriculum.\n\nThe word and the meaning of the experience belong to each other and need\neach other, and the relation between them is a necessary part of\neducation. Let us use the word \"fight\" as an illustration. We have this\nword because of man's experience in fighting. Out of the relationships\nof conflict and combat comes the experience we think of as fighting, and\nthe word \"fight\" stands for it. The very young child learns to fight\nbefore he learns the word \"fight.\" So far as he knows, the experience of\nfighting exists only between himself and his mother, and it is necessary\nfor him to discover that fighting is a universal human activity. He\nlearns the meaning of the word \"fight\" by the meanings that he brings\nout of his own combat, and on the basis of these he begins to understand\nthe universal meaning of \"fight.\" The word thus unites his little,\nindividual experience with the experience of the human race of which he\nis a part. Therefore the word becomes an effective instrument in\nteaching him the meaning of his experience in the context of the\nexperience of his own kind.\n\nSimilarly, because of his relationship to his mother, the child may\nexperience her trustworthiness long before he knows the word \"trust,\"\nbut he needs a word for this experience. Then, as he begins to acquire\nthe ability to convey these meanings with words, he learns the word\n\"trust\" and immediately the door opens so that his experience becomes\nrelated to the much larger experience of the people that have lived\nbefore him. If a child is being brought up in the Christian fellowship,\nthe minute he begins to have a word to describe the trustworthiness of\nhis relationship with his mother, he also begins to understand the\nmeaning of trust as Christians have experienced it in relation to God.\n\nOn the other hand, it is difficult to convey the meaning of Christ's\ndeath to a child. Here the words are crucial to the understanding of the\nmeaning, but he cannot bring out of his own life sufficient experiences\nto make the meaning of the concept available to him. But it is important\nto introduce him to these concepts by means of words against the time\nwhen the words will carry meaning. As we live with our children we help\nthem interpret the meaning of their experiences. Some day they will be\nable to move from the little meanings that they have accumulated about\nlife and death to the great meanings of the life and death and\nresurrection of Christ by means of the little word \"cross\" and other\nassociated words. Education requires the use of both the language of\nwords _and_ the language of relationships. We teach children the words\nof our faith, but at the same time we try to live with them in ways that\nwill provide the meanings that will prepare them for understanding the\nmeanings of the faith. And this is what I mean when I suggest that what\nhappens between us is an indispensable part of the curriculum.\n\n\n_The Curriculum of Relationship_\n\nThis emphasis upon the relationship between parent and child, between\nteacher and pupil, between person and person, as a part of the learning\nsituation, seems to put a heavy burden upon the teacher. After all, it\nwas difficult enough when the teacher had to be responsible for the\ncorrect words for the transmission of the truth, and for the\nunderstandings that must go with them. Now, in addition, we have to pay\nattention to what is going on between teacher and pupil. The work of\nteaching is much bigger than mere verbal transmission, and nothing less\nis worthy of being called Christian teaching.\n\nThis kind of teaching requires that the truth being taught be incarnate\nin the relationship between men, which was what God did in Christ. The\nteaching of Christ is contained not only in His words, but also in His\nlife. His life gave meaning to His words and made them uniquely\ndifferent from any other words that had ever been spoken. Actually, many\nof the things that our Lord taught were not new, but His life was, and\nthis made His teaching unique. The same principle must apply to us. Some\ninstruction given in the name of Christian education is dull,\nmonotonous, and irrelevant. There is nothing untrue about it, but it is\ntaught without the conviction born of experience, and it is not\nexpressed in what goes on between man and man. On the other hand, a\nrecognition of the responsibilities of this kind of teaching should be\ncoupled with the joys and satisfactions of it. It is the kind of\nteaching that can relieve us of some of the anxieties of accomplishment.\n\n\n_A Word of Encouragement_\n\nMany parents and teachers are concerned about the quality of the care\nand teaching which they give children, and they are particularly worried\nabout their failures and sins in relation to them. Present in many of us\nis the fear that we may have permanently impaired the future welfare of\nthose for whom we are responsible. This leads us to try to be perfect in\nthe discharge of our duties and thus prevent serious injury to our\nchildren. In other words, we would like to love them perfectly, which,\nif we were able to do, would ill prepare them for their life in this\nworld.\n\nFurthermore, and more importantly, implicit in this anxiety is a grave\nmisconception of what it means to be a Christian. The test of our love\nand faith is not the absence of failure and sin and problems, but lies\nin what we are able to do about them. Of course, Christian parents get\nangry with their children and say and do things that hurt them. We are\nhaunted by the signs in our children that we have failed them, by the\nevidences of their anxiety, by the problems they sometimes have in\nrelation to other people, by their lying and stealing, by their\nhostility and quarrelsomeness, and by their excessive competitiveness\nand jealousy. Sometimes the scenes around the family table are far\ndifferent from our image of what Christian family life and fellowship\nshould be. We wonder where we have failed, grow discouraged, and fail\nagain. We are embarrassed by the contradiction that our children see\nbetween the things that we say and the things that we do.\n\nParents and teachers who, like Mrs. Strait, live by the law, either have\nto blind themselves to what's going on in their relationships or else\nbecome profoundly discouraged. And if we are like Mr. Churchill, our\ndecision will be to ignore human problems and to turn ourselves to a\ndevotion of God, as if that were possible! Dr. Manby would wait for time\nto take care of the matter, and Mr. Knowles would frantically cram more\nknowledge about the Bible into the minds of parents and children in the\nhope that, somehow or other, knowing about God and Christian teaching\nwould produce the necessary changes. Mr. Clarke, of course, would turn\nthe whole \"mess\" over to the clergy.\n\nImplicit in the situations we have been discussing is a concept of\nsuccess, the assumption being that if we love God and our neighbor\neverything we do will turn out all right. My grandfather always\nmaintained that his business prospered because he kept the laws of God.\nWhen we stop to think about it, we realize what a faulty concept this\nis. After all, it was not easy for Christ to accomplish the purposes of\nlove in this world, and there is no reason why it should be any easier\nfor us. It is not easy to maintain the dialogue of life; it is not easy\nto call forth the being of others; it is not easy to regain the freedom\nto love even when we respond to the spirit of love. We recognize the\ncredibility and promise of all these principles, but wonder at the\ndifficulty of their application.\n\n\n_The Work of Love_\n\nWe need to remember that even God, with all of His power and wisdom,\ndoes not give His love to us in ways that take away our freedom of\nresponse. He leaves us free to say Yes or No to Him, to love, to our\nfamilies, and to all the responsibilities of life. This means, as we saw\nearlier, that we are to speak the word of love and leave the other\nperson free to make his response. We cannot expect a guaranteed response\nfrom him. We cannot prevent him from making a wrong response any more\nthan we can make him give the right response. Our children are free, and\nwe must respect that freedom. This is why the achievement of a love\nrelationship is so exceedingly difficult. In the achievement of any\nrelationship we are involved in a life-and-death struggle. Our children,\nfor instance, want our love, care, and protection. At the same time,\nthey want to be their own selves and to assume responsibility for their\nown lives. They can and do resent, with devastating hostility, action on\nour part that looks to them like interference with their lives. On the\nother hand, we love them and feel that we cannot do enough for them. The\neffect of our zeal often is to overwhelm them with our care and deprive\nthem of the freedom in which to achieve their power of being.\n\nInevitably, then, the living dialogue between the parent and the child\nis both a happy and a troubled one in which the powers of love and\nresentment are exerted on both sides. The struggle between freedom and\ntyranny in human relations is understood in the struggle of the cross,\nwhich takes place in every individual and in every relationship. The\nactualization of ourselves in relation to one another is both difficult\nand painful. It is hard to understand how anybody could ever think it\nwas easy. The struggle calls for a love that is prepared to lay down its\nlife for its friends. The entrance of love into life brings, sometimes,\nnot peace but a sword. Tension and conflict may accompany the work of\nlove. The conflict between the love of God and the self-centeredness of\nman produces an ugly, rugged, and bloody struggle, which the crucifixion\nsummarized.\n\n\n_The Power of Love_\n\nThe good news of the gospel is not that a way has been given us by which\nto avoid conflict, but that the power of love has been given us for the\nconflict. With it we can enter into the shambles of life with assurance,\ncourage, and a belief that, even though we cannot always understand what\nis going on, the purpose of love is to reunite man and man, and that in\nChrist God's love won the initial victory in this process. We may,\ntherefore, participate in the life of the world with all of its\nconflicts, including our own personal conflicts, with faith in the power\nof reuniting love. We should not be surprised when we find ourselves\nembroiled in conflict and involved in complex situations. Our faith is\nnot in our ability to do right, but in the power of God to help us\nre-enter the difficult and unpleasant situations we have created with\nnew hope and with healing love. We may be thankful that God revealed\nHimself through a cross and, therefore, made clear how realistic He is\nin relation to the characteristics and conditions of human existence.\n\nThe power of love is liberating. It frees us so that we can use what\nhappens between us as a part of the curriculum of Christian living and\nlearning. Instead of wasting our time worrying about why things happen,\nwe can use our energies and our understandings to deal with them\nconstructively. The purpose of Christianity is not alone the prevention\nof crime, but the redemption of criminals; not alone the prevention of\nsin, but the saving of sinners. The great Christian word is redemption,\nwhich means transforming a destructive relationship into one in which\nthe conditions and purposes of love are realized. Let us remember that\nfine linen paper is made out of old dirty rags. Similarly, a wonderful\nChristian relationship can be formed out of one that seems tragic. As we\nhave seen, the test of a man is not in what happens to him, but in what\nhe does about what happens to him. The transformation of what happens\nin human relations is the work of the Holy Spirit, continuing the work\nthat was begun in Christ. The Spirit gives the gift of reconciling love\nwith which we may participate in the continuing work of Christ, which is\nthe redemption and transformation of life. So in the context of this\nlove we can relax while we also exercise our care.\n\n\n_Love and Sin_\n\nThe power of love over sin is widely recognized. In the first place,\nthere is no judgment like the judgment implicit in love. The face of\nlove is compassionate, but it gives a light that reveals the darkness of\nour hearts. We know that we are judged, but we know also that we are not\ncondemned. The judgment and the forgiveness come to us as a part of the\ncommunication of love. Have we not felt this as we stood in the presence\nof someone whose love was true? We wished to be rid of everything in us\nthat was unworthy of that love. In that same instant there may have\nwelled up within us a repentance and a determination to live in response\nto that purifying, reuniting love. Such is our experience when the\nSpirit of Christ brings us face to face with Him and His love. To be\nloved is to be illumined, purified, and transformed, because love has\nthe power of re-creation.\n\nParents and others who are conscious of their failures and sins in\nrelation to their loved ones should remember that human beings are\nfundamentally resilient and resourceful. Children's springs of life and\nvitality are powerful. Their need to affirm themselves as persons is\nundeniable, and any experience of love that they have is reinforcing.\nExperiences of unlove are to them unbelievable and point, fundamentally\nand finally, to the necessity and believability of love. While our\nchildren are dependent upon us for their personal environment in which\nto grow up, they bring powers and resources to their growing up which\nare independent of us. They bring something to the dialogue in which\nself-actualization occurs. Their part of the dialogue is just as\nimportant and indispensable as ours. We cannot live their lives for\nthem. They have to live their own lives, and our part is to live in\nrelation to them and contribute our assistance to their powers of\nbecoming.\n\nParents and teachers are not the only ones who influence their children.\nWe live in a society in which different people have different roles to\nplay in relation to everyone else. We should not measure the progress of\na child only by how we see him or by what we think he is receiving from\nus. Our impression of the child's progress may be mistaken. We may not\nbe able to know him as he is, nor know what others are contributing.\nAnd, least of all, can we know the total effect of all his relationships\non what he is becoming as a person. Our anxieties about a particular\nincident may exist because we fail to see it in its total context. Much\nhappens in the development of a person's life that we do not see, and\nmuch of the transformation occurs secretly at levels so deep that we\ncannot observe it. Although we may not see what is happening, we may be\nsure that something is. In the sphere of the personal we need to trust\nboth God and man, and if we trust God we can trust man. We then may take\na long view of our task, and teach and work and live by faith.\n\nThis is what it should mean to be a Christian and a member of the church\nof Christ. What a wonderful thing it is to belong to a fellowship that\nis made up of people who may be united by the Spirit of God and through\nwhom we believe that God works! What a comfort it is to know that we do\nnot have to do and believe everything ourselves! Not only do we not have\nto live and believe and love for ourselves, but others live and believe\nand love for us at times when we cannot. But let us also remember that\nwe have to live and believe and love for them when weakness or doubt or\nhostility seems to overwhelm them. This is the meaning of Christian\nfellowship; namely, that we are not an aggregation of individuals, but\ninstead are members of one body, with every member having his own\nfunction, and the function of every member standing in a complementary\nrelation to that of the others, of which body Christ is the head. Here\nis the source of the love about which we have been speaking and the\nprocess through which love is lived in the life of the world that God\nloves.\n\n  [11] Luke 10:27.\n  [12] From _Love, Power and Justice_, by Paul Tillich, Oxford\n       University Press, Copyright, 1954. Used by permission.\n  [13] 1 John 4:10. The title of this book was suggested by the familiar\n       opening words of this verse in the King James Version, \"Herein is\n       love....\"\n  [14] Matt. 10:8.\n  [15] See Luke 19:2 ff.\n  [16] See Luke 7:37 ff.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nSOME OBJECTIVES OF LOVE\n\n    \"Little children, let us not love in word or speech\n                               but in deed and in truth.\"--_1 John 3:18_\n\n\nThe objective of love, as we have seen, is to \"move everything to\neverything else that is,\" especially to reunite person to person. This\nis an identifying characteristic of the love of God, and it is to some\ndegree the characteristic of all love. We believe that this love was\nincarnate in Jesus Christ. We believe that His Spirit, active in the\nworld in which we live, seeks to incarnate this love in us here and now.\nFurthermore, we have identified some more general characteristics of\nlove. Now we turn to look at some of the ways in which love accomplishes\nits purpose, a purpose which is the responsibility of the church in its\ndispersion in the life of the world.\n\n\n_Love's Sphere Is Personal_\n\nThe sphere of love's action is in the realm of the personal; it acts in\nand through relationships. The process by which the person emerges is\nboth wonderful and fearful, and one for which we should have reverence,\nthe zeal to understand, and the willingness to be responsible for.\nCertain specific things need to be accomplished which are the work of\nlove, which we have already identified as the calling forth of persons.\nIn this work of love we participate in the reconciling work of God in\nChrist today. Let us remember also that children first experience the\nlove of God through their experience of their parents' love, and that\nparents in loving their children are loving God, since we love God by\nloving one another. How else can we love God than by loving one another?\nWith this understanding of the context in which we live and work and\nserve one another, let us turn our attention to how love's task is\naccomplished.\n\nFirst, however, a word about what that task is not. The objective of\nlove is not to create or nurture a so-called normal human being. In the\nfirst place, there is no universal concept of the normal, and the\ncriterion of normality varies from age to age and from culture to\nculture. All men have problems and always will have them. The pursuit of\nperfection is a perilous project that may cause all kinds of\nimperfections and will inevitably produce disillusionment.\n\nAdjustment cannot be the goal of Christian living and the objective of\nlove. The clam is adjusted about as well as any of God's creatures, but\nhas very little to offer beyond a passive role in a bowl of soup.\nInstead of striving to mold a person completely adjusted to his\nsurroundings, love seeks to nurture a person who is capable of\nmaintaining a creative tension between his need and his responsibility,\nbetween the vitality of spirit and the form of being. And, according to\ntests, such creative people often are classified as not normal and not\nwell adjusted.\n\nNor is the pursuit of happiness the objective of love. Happiness for\nhuman beings is a forlorn hope. Because of conflicts within himself and\nbetween himself and others, man is doomed to be unhappy most of the\ntime. He is always having to deal with the inevitable conflicts and\naccidents of life that give him a sense of vulnerability, both as an\nindividual and as a member of his tribe, nation, or race. Instead, the\nobjective of love is to provide the human being with resources, by means\nof which he may face his human existence with courage and with a sense\nof peace that passes understanding. It now remains for us to spell this\nout in human terms.\n\n\n_Dialogue Between Individual and Environment_\n\nWhen the human being is born, he leaves the biological exchange of the\nwomb for the social exchange system of his society, where his gradually\nincreasing capacities meet the opportunities and limitations of his\nculture. The appearance of the person, therefore, results from the\ndialogue between himself and his environment, between his growing,\nautonomous self and the directing community upon which he is dependent.\nThis dialogue between the individual and his environment often has, as\nwe have seen, the characteristics of a conflict. The individual\nchallenges and makes demands of his family, and the family challenges\nand makes demands of the child. Each wrestles with the problems of trust\nin relation to the other, each wrestles for autonomy that is equal to\nthe domination of the other, each strives for the initiative and\nindustriously competes with the other, and each seeks an identity that\nmay either exclude or include the other. The quality of the life of the\nindividual and of the social order depends upon the results of the\ndialogue between them.\n\nI am thinking of two families. In one, the parents helped their children\nwork through their difficulties with each other, thus assuming\ndialogical responsibility for what happened between them. In late\nteenhood, each child in turn became a person in his own right who had\nachieved a relatively mature, congenial, and loving relation with every\nother member of the family. In the second family, the parents could not\nface the conflicts inevitable to human nature in a growing family, and\npretended a quality of relationship that did not exist between them.\nWhen their children became late teen-agers and older, a smoldering\nantagonism existed between them which occasionally broke out in venomous\nquarrels. The parents of this second family had not assumed dialogical\nresponsibility for the content of their family life, with the result\nthat the interaction between the growing person and his environment was\nnot creative.\n\nThe process of unfolding patterns, of decisions made in response to\ncrises, of frustrations and achievements in living, are also the human\ncontent for religious development, and provide opportunities for both\nconversion and nurture. The development of a person is religiously\nsignificant, and the events in his life have ultimate meaning. We may\nthink of them in only psychological and sociological dimensions, but\ntheir meaning also is theological and religious. As we weave our\nintricate way through the years of our lives, approaching and\nwithdrawing, attacking and retreating, victorious and beaten, decisive\nand uncertain, being loved and being resented, loving and hating, and\nsometimes gladly and sometimes reluctantly participating in the dialogue\nbetween ourselves and our environment of influential persons, we may ask\nourselves this question: What contributes to our emergence as\nresponsible, resourceful persons? As participants in the dialogue\nbetween our children and ourselves, for example, we should like to know\nthe kind of address and response we should make that would call them\nforth as persons who will be responsible and helpful in relation to\ntheir dependents, peers, and superiors; and enable us, through them, to\nlove and serve God. How can we so participate with them in living that\nthere will be called forth in them a courage that will dare the risks of\ncreativity and acquire the freedom to love?\n\nThe dialogue between the individual and life is initiated by the basic\nquestion that is implicit in our being, and becomes explicit as our\ncapacities as persons increase. The basic question is: Who am I?, and\nassociated with it is its partner question: Who are you? These two\nquestions have to be asked together almost as if they were one question,\nbecause there is no answer to the question: Who am I?, except as there\nis an answer to the question: Who are you? And this twofold question is\nnot only asked implicitly by the newborn baby, but explicitly by his\nparents, whose own dialogue with the baby involves asking and receiving\nanswers to Who are you? and Who am I? because the relationship is one in\nwhich the child also may call forth the parent as a person.\n\nThis basic twofold question is one which we all continue to ask all\nthrough our lives in many different ways. We must not associate\nquestion-asking exclusively with verbalization. Obviously, the baby\ncannot ask his mother in words who she is. He does it by his actions, by\nhis random movements, by his crying, by his protests, by his exploring\nhands and eyes, by his mouth. And the mother does not give reply to his\nquestion by word only, but by her actions; by her feeding and care of\nhim, by her neglect, by her joy in him and her irritation because of\nhim, by her coming to him and by her unexplained departures from him.\nAll her actions are a language by which she tells her child who she is\nin response to the questions implicit in his actions. And her answer to\nhim as to who she is gives him the beginning of an answer to his\nquestion as to who he is.\n\nThus, the dialogue between mother and child, which is largely nonverbal,\ntells him that his mother is one who in some ways loves him and in\nothers does not, and tells him also that he is one who in some ways is\nloved and in other ways is not. Out of this interchange emerges his\nmanner of response which may become his style of living and loving. But\nwe need to remember that his characteristics as a person are not wholly\ndetermined by the action of his environment, because they also are\ndetermined by who he is within himself as a unique being. His\ninheritance provides him a given quality and capacity. Therefore, the\ndialogue is to be understood also as a dialogue between heredity and\nenvironment in which his experience of love releases his power of being.\n\n\n_Sense of Trust_\n\nThe first objective of love to be accomplished out of the dialogue\nbetween the individual and the world is the awakening in him of a sense\nof basic trust. Trust toward oneself and toward others is acquired to\nsome degree during the first year. I have discussed this at some length\nin an earlier book, _Man's Need and God's Action_,[17] and here, as well\nas there, I acknowledge my indebtedness to the work of Erik Erikson.[18]\nIn this chapter I shall discuss the other senses that he identifies as\nnecessary acquisitions of the growing personality.\n\nPerhaps the greatest contribution to the achievement of basic trust is\nthrough the experience of being fed. The experience of being fed\nregularly and responsibly causes the child to respond with trust, and he\nlearns to have faith long before he knows the word for it. Later, at the\nappropriate time he acquires the word \"faith\" to point to the meaning of\nhis trust experiences. If, still later, he allows the words to take the\nplace of the substance of his faith, they will become empty words.\nResponsible parents and teachers seek to combine the right word with\ntheir action so that the meaning of the child's experiences is\ncorrelated with the words for them. A mature correlation between word\nand experience is one in which the child has the experience of finding\npeople both trustworthy and untrustworthy, and has been helped to deal\nwith the untrustworthiness in the context of trust. His first\nexperience, therefore, is a realistic one in which he is strengthened by\nhis experiences of trust, and is not made too anxious by his experiences\nof the inevitable failures of his loved ones to take care of him\nperfectly.\n\nThe child's experience of trust and mistrust contains the first meanings\nfor his Christian education. The care of the Divine Father is expressed\nin and through the care of his earthly parents. His response to the care\nof his earthly parents is his response to his Divine Father. This needs\nto be interpreted to the child as he grows up, so that he will accept\nand believe in the participating presence of God in human life. An\nobstacle in the way of this achievement occurs when people separate God\nfrom life and make Him a kind of absentee operator of the machine called\nthe world. It then is necessary for the child to make a huge leap from\nhis trust of his parents to faith in God. While we cannot equate\nparental action with divine action, nevertheless we can affirm that\ndivine action takes place through human action. When such an affirmation\nis made and accepted as a part of the parents' faith and is interpreted\nto the child as he is able to receive it, he is helped to grow up with a\nreligious understanding of life itself, rather than conceiving of\nreligion as being merely a part of life. He will grow up with the idea\nthat being trustworthy and trusting others has not only psychological\nand sociological meaning, but also theological meaning.\n\nA sense of trust is basic, because without it the further development of\nthe individual would not be possible. Its foundations are laid in the\nvery first year of an individual's life. The act of taking from his\nmother not just food, but her ministrations, her companionship and\nfriendliness, is the beginning of his emergence as an individual apart\nfrom his parents. As he becomes an individual person, he immediately\nbegins to be a giver as well as a taker. Giving, as well as receiving,\nmust become a part of the dialogical relation between two individuals,\nwhether between a child and the parent, or between two adults. As soon\nas a child begins to become a giver, the parent must consent to be a\nreceiver of that which the child has to give, and thus, again, is a\nrelationship of basic trust established.\n\nWithout parental reception the child would not be affirmed as a giver,\nand would, out of his mistrust, become a compulsive taker, a result that\nis tragic not only psychologically and sociologically, but religiously\nas well. He will not be able to trust God; but because he needs to trust\nGod, he will begin to create images of God in the context of which he\nwill try to handle his existential problems. Thus, the foundations of a\nfalse religion may be laid in early childhood, and this false religion,\nas it matures, closes the person off from the truth of the gospel and\nkeeps him from becoming an instrument of the gospel in relation to the\nwhole world. The church is filled with people who do not really trust\nGod, even though they publicly profess their faith in Him. These people,\nlike Mr. Clarke, Mrs. Strait, and the others, live timidly.\n\nWe must not conclude that the establishment of basic trust concerns only\ninfants. The balance between trust and mistrust is something that\nconcerns us all our days, and the question is raised acutely again every\ntime we face a danger in the circumstances of our lives. I have observed\nthat when people come together in a new group relationship, their basic\nquestions, Who am I? and Who are you?, are reactivated. Significant\ncommunication between them does not take place until some relationship\nof trust is established on the basis of satisfactory answers. Our\ninitial asking of these questions in infancy is, to some degree,\nrepeated at subsequent times in our lives. They are repeated in times of\nmarriage, bereavement, retirement, death, or in my personal crisis; and\nalso when we face the threat of war or the possibility of interplanetary\nexistence, or in any economic, social, or political crisis. Needed at\nthese times of threat are relationships with sufficient power to enable\nus to participate in the dialogue out of which will come the answers to\nour questions. The objective of love is to provide the relationship of\nlove for a world that, again and again, and in an infinite variety of\nways, asks the basic questions: Who am I? and Who are you?\n\nHow wonderful it is to participate in the answer to the basic questions!\nMothers, for instance, who tend to lose the sense of purpose in the\nminutiae of their responsibilities, could be helped to realize how\nprofoundly important is the care they give their children. The way in\nwhich they feed and care for their families may be, if they opened\nthemselves to the presence and action of God in human life, the means of\ntheir child's union with man and God.\n\nAs we try to meet the physical and emotional needs of children, and\ntravel with them through the various crises of life in which we both\nparticipate, we may have the reassurance that we are doing a great work,\nthe full meaning of which we may not be able to see at the moment.\nFurthermore, we may be reassured that we are participating in the work\nof God in the world and engaged in the true ministry of the church in\nthe world. When there is this living that awakens and renews trust, the\nformal teaching and religious observances of the church both receive and\ngive additional meaning.\n\n\n_Sense of Autonomy_\n\nThe second objective of love is the achievement of a sense of autonomy.\nWe said earlier that as the child begins to take that which is given to\nhim, he begins to distinguish between himself and others, and thereby to\nbecome a separate person. In so doing, he begins to achieve some degree\nof autonomy as an independent person. This second task is made easier\nfor him, if he is able to approach it with a sense of trust. The need\nfor a sense of trust in the achievement of autonomy becomes apparent\nonce we recognize what this second task involves. It introduces the\nchild into a conflict of interests. On the one hand, he needs the\nconstant care, supervision, and love of his parents; and on the other\nhand, he needs to assert his own will and stand over against his parents\nas a separate person. He both needs to be a part of the mother and\ndistinct from her. The conflict between these needs increases as the\nindividual becomes a person.\n\nThis process, however, often results in a warfare of unequal wills\nbetween the child and the parent. The child himself is capable of\nviolent drives which frighten him and which he is unable to control; and\nthe parent can be provoked to emotional responses that escape his\ncontrol and are frightening. The relationship between them, therefore,\nmay become one in which each is seeking to dominate and control the\nother. This pattern occurs in all relationships and is often observed in\nmarriage, where, by various kinds of behavior, each partner seeks to\ncontrol the other.\n\nThe muscular mechanism basic to the achievement of autonomy is the\nmechanism of holding on and letting go. By the employment of it, the\nindividual begins to be aware of his powers as a separate person.\nAwareness of these powers and of the possibilities inherent in them\nprecipitates the struggle between him and others. A child can be very\npliable or very stubborn in his holding on or letting go, and it is not\nlong before parents discover that they cannot make a child do something\nthat he will not do. At this point, the parent's own maturity in the\nemployment of the same mechanisms will determine how he will respond to\nthe child's stubborn and often hostile efforts to achieve autonomy.\n\nAs people mature, the holding-on and letting-go tension is transferred\nfrom the muscular to the emotional and psychological. If adults have\nachieved a relaxed attitude, they will be able to provide the child with\nfirmness, and at the same time allow him some freedom in determining his\nown action. An environment of freedom and authority will help him\nachieve a balance between love and hate, co-operation and willfulness.\nAn early sense of trust, we see, is necessary for the development of\nautonomy. Without trust the child will not feel free to struggle, as he\nmust, for its achievement. He will not feel free, because he does not\nhave faith either in himself or in his world, in relation to which he\nmust struggle.\n\nThe objective of love, therefore, is to provide a relationship of\nfirmness and tolerance within which a child may become autonomous and\nacquire a sense of self-control, self-esteem, and relationship with\nothers. Otherwise he may suffer loss of confidence in himself and become\nskeptical of others, a result which can be the fruit of either\nrestrictive discipline or unstructured freedom.\n\nThe achievement of a sense of autonomy must always remain relative, and\nwill vary from individual to individual. As we have seen, there is no\nfixed norm for human behavior, and the best sense of autonomy that\nanyone can possibly achieve is one in which there is a mixture of\nco-operation and willfulness, of love and hostility. We can only hope\nand pray that as we all mature our autonomy will be employed with\ncreative good will, and that it will be capable of dealing with the\nresults of our hostility and stubbornness.\n\nAlthough our sense of autonomy appears during our second and third year\nof life, its further development depends upon our relationship with\nothers. Furthermore, its employment has other arenas than that of family\nlife. The dialogue from which autonomy grows moves out of family and\ninto the neighborhood. It is quickened and disciplined by entrance into\nschool, is heated and tempered by the development of social life,\nespecially by the dialogue between the sexes when the need to surrender\noneself to the other meets the needs of each to be oneself.\n\nFinally, the autonomy of the individual is sure to be challenged by the\ncomplexities and organization of modern industrial society. More and\nmore the individual is being caught in the intricacies of a process in\nwhich his sense of autonomy and initiative is violated. The problems of\nthe social order are so massive that the interests of the individual\noften are sacrificed. Increasingly, people are unable to endure the\nfrustrations caused by their social, political, and industrial\nenvironment, and develop neurotic responses in which their aggressions\nare turned in on themselves. The autonomy and initiative that once\nbelonged to the individual have been transferred to the social order,\nwith the result that instead of individuals receiving their direction\nfrom within, they now receive it from without, with the inevitable\ndemand for conformity, in which the integrity of the individual is apt\nto be sacrificed. Every time he turns on his radio or television set,\nhis autonomy is assaulted by all kinds of pressures.\n\nThis condition presents education and religion with peculiar\nchallenges. In order to minister to the world, it is necessary that one\nparticipate in the life of the world and share its problems as did our\nLord. But if we are to be the instrument of God's purpose in the work of\nthe world, it will be necessary for us to have a sense of autonomy and a\npower of independence. This is what it means to be in the world but not\nof the world.\n\nOne of the objectives of love, therefore, is so to live with one\nanother, especially with our children, that out of that relationship we\nmay emerge with such a power of being as a person that we shall be able\nto face the complexities, pressures, deprivations, and dangers of modern\nlife. Our aim is to help the child become a responsible participant in\nthe crucial issues of life, and to preserve his integrity as a deciding\nperson. The answer to his questions, Who am I? and Who are you?, will\nthen be: I am what I will, and you are what you will; and our\nrelationship is one of mutuality in which each will call forth the\nother. If the awakening of a sense of autonomy is an objective of love,\nit is also the objective of the church's life, its teaching, and its\nevangelistic endeavor. Without power of autonomy and independence,\nChristians will be mere conformists and maintainers of the _status quo_.\n\n\n_Sense of Initiative_\n\nThe third objective of love is to help the individual achieve a sense of\ninitiative. At the age of four or five, a child is faced with his next\ncrisis and must take his next big step. He must find out what kind of\nperson he is going to be. His search will be strengthened by his\nexperience of trust, and by whatever power of autonomy he has. Dr.\nErikson points out that he wants to be like his parents who seem very\nwonderful to him, but who, at the same time, present him with very real\nthreats. During this age he plays at being his parents. According to Dr.\nErikson, there are three strong developments which help him, but which\nalso contribute to his crisis. \"First, he learns to move around more\nfreely and more violently, and therefore establishes a wider, and so it\nseems to him, an unlimited radius of goals. Two, his sense of language\nbecomes perfected to the point where he understands and can ask about\nmany things just enough to misunderstand them thoroughly; and three,\nboth language and locomotion permit him to expand his imagination over\nso many things that he cannot avoid frightening himself with what he\nhimself has dreamed and thought up. Nevertheless, out of all this he\nmust emerge with a sense of unbroken initiative as a basis for a high,\nand yet realistic, sense of ambition and independence.\"[19]\n\nInitiative is the power that moves the individual to take over the role\nof others; the boy, his father; the girl, her mother; later as the\ndriver of the car, and later still, leadership roles of various kinds.\nThe struggles in the process are accompanied by feelings of anxiety, of\ninadequacy, and of guilt. Feelings of inadequacy in relation to the size\nand powers of the adult can be considerable; and the feelings of guilt,\nin response to the daydreams about replacing Daddy, for instance, are\ncrucial, and too often are unrecognized by many parents and teachers.\nThey need to recognize and accept the developmental reasons for the\nchild's preoccupations and fantasies about himself in relation to them\nand their roles and functions. Furthermore, it is entirely appropriate\nfor him to be physically aggressive toward others, to overwhelm them\nwith his incessant chattering, his aggressive getting into things, and\nhis insatiable curiosity about everything. The objective of love at this\ntime is to provide the child with a reasonable freedom within which to\ndevelop his initiative with a minimum sense of guilt in relation to its\nexercise, and with the hope that by so doing he will become a person\nwhose creativity will not be frustrated by an overdeveloped sense of\nguilt.\n\nIn contrast, many people are embarrassed by recognition of their\nachievements, and are prevented from achievement because of guilt\nfeelings that block their creative efforts. Unfortunately, too much\nreligious teaching has made people feel guilty about initiative and\naggressiveness, both of which can be expressed creatively. From\nchildhood on, lives are hedged about by prohibitions in relation to\npersons bearing authority, by belittling attitudes toward themselves and\ntoward their drives to compete and to get ahead, so that people become\nself-restricted and are kept from living up to their inner capacities or\nfrom using their powers of imagination and feeling. While some withdraw\ninto a dull kind of existence, others overcompensate in a great show of\ntireless initiative and a quality of \"go-at-it-iveness\" at all costs.\nThese people often overdo to a point where they can never relax, and\nthey feel that their worth as people consists entirely in what they are\ndoing rather than in what they are.\n\nThe objective of love is to help the child accept the necessary\nstructures, authorities, and personal roles in relation to which he must\nlive, so that he may grow in his capacity to love persons and to use\nthings. During this stage of life, children often turn to other adults\nfor companionship and guidance. They do so because the conflicts between\nthemselves and these new adults do not seem to be as great as with their\nown parents. They need these \"fresh\" relationships where they can\nexercise initiative without too much conflict and guilt. Here the school\nand church, with its trained teachers and workers, have an opportunity\nto supplement, and even to correct, the experiences that children are\nhaving at home. We should remember, however, that the identifications\nwith the parent are important, and that the experiences the youngsters\nare having with others should be of a complementary nature, even if they\nalso are corrective.\n\nAnother and supplementary objective of love is the provision of a\nrelationship by parents or others in which a spirit of equality makes\npossible an experience of doing things together, instead of a\nrelationship in which the child has to compete unequally with the adult.\nFathers, for instance, may be of great help to their sons. Boys are apt\nto feel that their fathers are too big, too powerful, and too skillful;\nbut if the father will base the relationship on some interest or\nexperience common to them both, the boy has an opportunity to grow in\ninitiative and to develop his capacities without a sense of unequal\ncompetition.\n\nThe answer to the child's questions. Who am I? and Who are you?, will\nthen be: I am what I conceive myself to be, and you are what I conceive\nyou to be according to my understanding of how you have revealed\nyourself. At this particular time in the development of the individual,\nthere begin to be formed the powerful images of ourselves and others\nthat aid or hinder our relationship with one another.\n\n\n_Sense of Industry_\n\nA fourth objective of love is to help the individual to a sense of\nindustry, for the child has now become a busy little person who needs to\nlearn how to be busy with things and persons. A child's \"busyness\"\nbegins with his play. Children play separately at first. In their\nyoungest years, they may sit apart in the same room, each playing with\nhis own things, and each oblivious of the other except when one may\ndiscover that the other has something he wants. Later, as they grow and\nmature, there begins what we call parallel play. They play along side of\neach other. Now they are aware of each other, and each keeps an eye on\nhis playmate. Their separate playing seems to have an influence on the\nother in that they imitate each other. Then, at a still later stage,\nthey begin to play together. The high point of this achievement, still\nlater, is team play, which begins in adolescence or even earlier.\n\nNow begins the capacity for directed fellowship. The fellowship of a\nteam is to be respected. Membership on the team may mean more to the boy\nthan membership in his church, and this may cause ministers, parents,\nand teachers considerable anxiety. Instead, they should relax and be\nglad for the youngster's experience, because team play is providing him\nwith an experience of relationship that later will become the basis for\nhis understanding of the ultimate meaning of all relationships. They\nshould accept the youngster's experience and use it creatively, to help\nhim understand the nature of the church, our relationship as brothers,\nand the \"captaincy\" of Christ.\n\nIn team play, also, we see the occurrence of something that is very much\na part of Christian character. In order for there to be team play, it is\nnecessary for every member of the team to die to the desire in him to\nbe the whole show. A mature team member has learned that his strength\nand skills depend on the strength and skills of others. This is the\ntheology of the playground. What has been learned in play may be\ntranslated into work. Then, since a man's work is one of the great\nspheres in which he may exercise his ministry as a representative of\nChrist, the learning of this profound lesson in the process of play is\nan important part of his religious education. And it can be religious,\neven though it may not be learned in the formal church.\n\nThe transition from play to work takes place gradually. Children become\ndissatisfied with play and make-believe, and have a growing need to be\nuseful, to make things well, and, therefore, to acquire a sense of\nindustry. They also learn to win recognition by producing things.\nThrough play they advance to new stages of real mastery in the use of\ntoys and things, and learn to master experience by meditation,\nexperimenting, and planning. The home, the school, and the church should\ntry to help them to make this transition easily in order that they may\ndevelop this sense of industry without a sense of inadequacy. If they\nare pushed too strenuously to produce, a sense of inadequacy may result,\nespecially when they still want to be cuddled and cared for. Family life\nhas the responsibility of preparing the youngsters for school, where, in\nthe context of their play experiences, they accept the disciplines of\nwork. Relaxed teachers are needed who understand the process by which\nchildren learn to move from play to work, and who can encourage them to\nmake this transition without either sparing them the needed disciplines\nor imposing them too strenuously. Here we see an area in which the role\nof the family and the role of the school are complementary.\n\nThe acquisition of a sense of industry is a decisive step in learning to\ndo things with others and alongside others. This will become a major\nsource of satisfaction and the area of his greatest service.\n\n\n_Sense of Identity_\n\nA fifth objective of love is to nurture in the human being a sense of\nidentity which is acquired and consolidated in a new way during\nadolescence. Dr. Erikson describes identity as the \"accrued confidence\nthat one's ability to maintain inner sameness and continuity is matched\nby the sameness and continuity of one's meaning for others.\"[20]\n\nAs an individual develops and acquires skills, he thinks of himself as\none who can do things, and his important people may hold a variety of\nexpectations of him: \"He's clumsy,\" \"He never can do anything right\";\nor, \"I can always count on him,\" \"He's got the right stuff in him.\" Out\nof his achievements and the attitudes of others toward him, his sense of\nself-esteem and prestige is built, little by little. As crisis after\ncrisis is passed and the individual meets each of them with reasonable\nresourcefulness and receives the encouragement and recognition of\nothers, he begins to believe in himself, to have a consistent\nexpectation of what he will do in the face of various circumstances and\nrelationships. In this way he begins to acquire a style of living which\nis his own and which contributes to his sense of identity and to others'\nidentification of him.\n\nIn the achievement of a sense of self-identity, the child needs models\nwith which to identify himself. Especially is this true during his\nadolescence. He needs association with men who are clear about being\nmen, and women who are clear about being women, and who are capable of\nand practice a reasonably wholesome relationship with each other. He\nneeds men and women who have convictions, who can distinguish between\nright and wrong, who hold these convictions firmly, and yet not rigidly.\nHe needs guides and counselors who can help him bring together and\nconcentrate his various and fluctuating drives and interests, and who\nare not dismayed or misled by the inconsistencies and fluctuations that\nmay accompany his development. He needs help in choosing a job, because\nself-identification is dependent upon some kind of occupational\nidentity. Finally, he needs help in acquiring, as a part of his sense of\nself-identity, a sense of vocation, of being called to something that is\ngreater than himself, which will draw him forth as a participant in the\ndeepest meaning of life. The providing of this kind of relationship to\nhelp the individual acquire an indispensable sense of identity is\nanother of love's objectives.\n\nUnfortunately, however, in our complex and technical society, the models\nafter which the youngsters may now pattern themselves are not as clear\nas they might be. People are having to undergo tremendous adjustments in\na time of rapid technical growth, as a result of which their image of\nthe world in which they live is changing; producing, therefore,\nuncertainties in themselves, and making it more difficult for\nadolescents. Our changing age creates many difficulties for changing\nadolescents. Cultural conditions often force young people to band\ntogether in groups or movements that provide them with a point of focus\nby means of which they stereotype themselves and their ideals. This is\none way in which they acquire stability and a sense of direction. We\nneed, however, to be tolerant of this and to recognize its purpose; we\nneed to realize also that if we provide them with alternatives, their\nneed for these stereotypes may disappear.\n\nThe church has a special role here. Most of the committee whose\ndiscussion we read in Chapter I, gave no evidence of being able to\nprovide young people with the kind of models they need, for there was\nnothing heroic, clear-cut, or creative about them. Their faith was\ndefensive, and it did not deal with the realities of life. Young people\nturn away from that kind of \"religion.\" And quite rightly. They need men\nand women whose religion, instead of being a defense against life,\nprovides them with the courage to move into life and become a part of\nit, to accept its problems and wrestle honestly for its meanings; whose\nstyle of Christian living is not compulsive, but liberated; not\npretentious, but honest; whose reverence for God is not confined to the\nsanctuary, but is exhibited in responsible relations with people. They\nneed models who, because of their religious faith, are able to admit\nwhen they are wrong and can ask for forgiveness without feeling a loss\nof personal dignity. They need religious teachers who can portray, both\nby word and by example, the great personalities of the tradition, the\nheroes and saints; teachers who are clear about what their contribution\nreally is, who can make clear to youth the heroism of a man of faith and\nlet it stand forth without all the confusions of superstitious\nveneration. They need a church and religious teachers and members that\nhave a sense of mission, a reason and purpose for living that is related\nto all the exciting meanings of human life, instead of being concerned\nwith such irrelevancies as churchism, parochialism, institutionalism,\nand other modern idols. In the context of this kind of example,\nadolescents, even in complex, modern, industrial America with all its\nconfused values, will have the aid they need in order to move through\nthe intricacies of their development and emerge with a sense of personal\nidentity and a capacity for relationship.\n\n\n_Sense of Integrity_\n\nA final objective of love is to help the individual, who by now has\nbecome an adolescent and is fast approaching the threshold of adult\nlife, to achieve a sense of integrity. The acquisition of the senses of\ntrust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity through the years of\nhis development should prepare him for responsible living with himself\nand others. Much depends, as we have seen, on the ability and\nwillingness of those in his environment to accept, respond to, and guide\nhim. But there is still unfinished business with which we must help him;\nnamely, the achievement of a sense of integrity.\n\nA sense of integrity includes a capacity for intimacy with others. More\nthan sexual intimacy is meant, although that is of more importance than\nmany religious people want to admit. For the moment, however, we are\nthinking of intimacy in a general sense, of our capacity to participate\nin the meanings of one another's lives, to fuse into relationships\nwithout losing our respective identities. We see young people striving\nto achieve this kind of relation with each other through their talking\nthings over endlessly, by confessing what one feels like and what the\nother seems like, and by sharing dreams, ideals, and ambitions. Where\nthis is not achieved by early adulthood, the individual may find himself\nseparated from others except for formal and stereotyped interpersonal\nrelations.\n\nOnly the person who is capable of intimacy can become a partner in any\nrelationship. People who marry with the hope of achieving the power of\nintimacy are often disappointed, because mutually fulfilling sexual\nintimacy requires a capacity for personal intimacy. What we are trying\nto say here is that before one can become a partner, one must first be a\nperson. With this we have reached a kind of summary in the development\nof our thesis which might be stated as follows: A person is called into\nbeing out of relationship, but the person in his separateness is\nnecessary to the achievement of a new relationship.\n\nIntimacy is not only platonic, but sexual as well. The growing person\nneeds help in acquiring a potential capacity for mutual, satisfying\nintimacy with a partner of the opposite sex. Heterosexual mutuality has\nreligious significance, since sexual intimacy is supposed to be an\noutward and visible sign of personal intimacy. Yet religion is often\nstrangely silent in this area, and our young people are often misled. A\nteen-ager recently said, \"I don't go much for this platonic stuff.\" When\nasked why, he said, \"I guess I'm too much of a wolf.\" When asked what he\nmeant by being a wolf, he said that he was interested only in making\nlove to a girl. His view of intimacy, which is similar to that of many\nother young people, reveals at least two misunderstandings: first, the\nseparation in his mind between the platonic kind of relationship and the\nsexual, and secondly, his association of the sexual with \"wolf,\" which\nis a symbol of the subhuman. Religious teaching needs to affirm sexual\nintimacy as a part of people's lives, and nurture them so that their\nsexual relationships may be a means of grace rather than a source of\nguilt.\n\nThe achievement of intimacy, general and specific, leads to the\ndevelopment of another capacity essential to integrity; namely, the\ncapacity for generation, whether of offspring or creativity of some\nother kind. Generative capacity is basic to an individual's assumption\nof responsibility, and to his ability to initiate and bring to\nfulfillment new life or new expressions of life. The power of\norigination is open to anyone, and we can either affirm the power or\ndeny it. If we deny it, we shall have to find substitutes which usually\nare subpersonal and which involve us in a kind of superficial but\nunfulfilling intimacy. On the other hand, the person with integrity is\none who can initiate creativity of his own, or consent to and\nparticipate in the creativity of others. As Dr. Erikson has pointed out,\nhe can be both a leader and a follower. These are qualities and values\nneeded by all men, and the cultivation of them is the task of the church\nand the purpose of its teaching.\n\nThe objectives of love, we see, are not abstract, but specific and\nconcrete. Love calls forth persons and reunites life with life by\nproviding the relationships in which the created needs of men are met.\nThe environment of saving love is needed to produce out of our\nbiological nature and the physical world in which we live the image of\nGod in each of us and the Kingdom of God for all of us.\n\n  [17] _Man's Need and God's Action_, Reuel L. Howe, The Seabury Press,\n       Greenwich, Connecticut, 1953, Chapter V.\n  [18] _Growth and Crises of the Healthy Personality_, Erik H. Erikson.\n       Pamphlet from _Problems of Infancy and Childhood_, Josiah Macy,\n       Jr. Foundation, New York, 1950. Used by permission.\n  [19] Ibid.\n  [20] Ibid.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nTHOSE WHO WOULD LOVE\n\n    \"We know that we have passed out of death into life,\n                           because we love the brethren.\"--_1 John 3:14_\n\n\nThus far in our discussion we have considered the nature of love, the\ndevelopment of the needs of the individual, and the objectives of love\nin calling persons into being. Now we turn to a discussion of the lover,\nor of the person or persons who are the instruments of that love, such\nas parents, teachers, ministers, and every man of whatever function. We\nshall also consider the nature of the relationship in which healing and\nreconciliation take place, and consider some of its resources.\n\n\n_The Power of the Personal_\n\nThe doctrine of the Incarnation, which underlies the whole Christian\nlife, is really the doctrine of the personalization of love. By it is\nmeant the embodiment in man of the life of God Who is love. The\nIncarnation makes this life personal, and persons, therefore, are of\nprimary importance to its existence and its meaning. In each generation\nthe Christian is called upon to reaffirm his faith in the power of\npersons living in relation to God and man.\n\nOur own generation has a special need for a reaffirmation of the\npersonal because of our preoccupation with science and technology, and\nwith vast space and enormous power. One wonders, and hears others\nwondering, what good is a person in the face of all these masses,\nspaces, and complexities. But it was revealed in Christ, and every now\nand then it is revealed to us afresh, that the whole vast structure of\nlife is dependent upon the power of persons and upon our exercise of the\npower of the personal. The character of man, expressed in his relations\nwith his fellow man, will finally determine whether we will use our vast\npowers creatively or for our destruction.\n\nThe primary vocation of the Christian in this time is to respond to the\ncall of the person to be personal. The church members with whose\nconversation we began this book, seemed oblivious to the personal nature\nof the church's purpose. They were concerned about substitutes for the\npersonal, about institutions and professional groups, about a legalistic\nmorality, and about knowledge for its own sake. Any one of their\nconcerns, if caught up in the vitality of the personal, could have\nvaluable meaning. Law, as we have seen, has its role, if it is a part of\nlove. Human effort is important as personal response to what God has\ndone for us. Dependence upon the clergy is a part of the life of the\nchurch, but the work of the clergy, as we have seen, cannot be a\nsubstitute for the ministry of the whole church. The church is\nimportant, but it does not find its meaning in its isolation from the\nworld. And knowledge about God, His creation, and redemption is\nnecessary to the Christian life, but such knowledge must find its\nmeaning in our living relation with God.\n\nThe recent emphasis on the interpersonal and group process has\ncontributed much to our understandings of the human relationships of\nChristian fellowship. As a result of the emphasis, a new polarity\noperates in the life and teaching of the church: one pole is the content\nof the Good News; the other pole is the encounter between men in which\nthe Good News is realized. Unfortunately, the image of the relationship\nbetween the encounter and the content of the Christian faith has been\nand still is that of opponents in a battle. This concept is erroneous,\nfor any dialogue must have content. The conversation between two people\nthat is not informed by learning produces nonsense. Discussion groups\nhave revealed their poverty when they have not been informed by\nresponsible knowledge; fellowship for the sake of fellowship becomes\ntiresome; and relationship without good discipline, whether in the home\nor elsewhere, becomes chaos and anarchy. So, there are some disciplines\nthat we need to observe as persons in whom the Spirit of God seeks to\nincarnate His love.\n\n\n_We Need Informed Christians_\n\nFirst, if we are to embody and express the love of Christ in our\ngeneration, we must keep our minds alert and our interests alive. At\nthis point, church people fail in several ways. Instead of having minds\nthat search for the meaning of life in Christian terms, they sometimes\nhave minds filled with musty opinions and prejudices. An otherwise alert\nlawyer, for example, said that he did not want his church to take a\nstand on any of the great social issues, but stick to its subject,\nnamely, religion. This preoccupation with the subject matter of religion\napart from its relevance to life is a characteristic failure of many\nchurch people.\n\nAs Christian churchmen, we do not need to be scholars in religion, but\nwe should be interested in the issues of life, open to new\nunderstandings, and engaged in some kind of reading or study that will\nkeep us informed and intellectually awake. Only in this way can we keep\nourselves from falling into narrow little ruts and pulling the world in\nafter us. A part of our ministry is to participate in and help to keep\nalive the dialogue between man and man, between the church and the\nworld, between Christian thought and the problems of existence.\nEmotional and opinionated thinking about religion, values, and social\nissues is appallingly prevalent among \"religious\" people. The\nconversations of church members often are pitiful in their concern for\nthe trivial affairs of the local church and institution, about its\nbuilding and organizations, its suppers and bazaars. What a pathetic and\ninconsequential way of serving Christ! He needs, instead, men and women\nwho are out on the frontiers of modern life, representing His message to\nthe world.\n\nThe accomplishment of an intellectually and socially responsible\nministry calls for some effort on the part of the local church. In the\nfirst place, the minister will have to preach, and teach out of, the\ngospel in its relation to life. Instead of talking so much about\nreligion as an end in itself, he ought to talk about life in the context\nof the teaching of religion. The content of his sermons and instructions\nshould be the affairs of men, for these raise the questions for which\nthe gospel was given. The discussion of religion apart from life\nproduces a laity who, in their life in the world, are unable to\nrepresent the message of the gospel, because they do not know that the\nmessage of the gospel has any relation to the affairs of life. Then we\nhear such laymen say to any minister who might try to speak relevantly\nto human questions: \"Stick to your subject; I don't think these things\nare the business of the church.\"\n\nChurch members, as a part of their devotion to Christ who had love for\nthe world, should try to understand the life of the world in terms of\nits deepest meanings, and not be content with merely its superficial\nvalues. They will read articles and books and editorials, and listen to\nspeeches and forums on television and radio, not only that they may be\ninformed, but also that they may be informed for God and may serve Him\nbetter in the world. Religion that seeks escape from the world, and\nsimilarly the person who will not assume responsibility for God in the\nworld, is sinful and idolatrous. Protection against this sin and\nidolatry is partly secured by serving God with our minds and our\ninterests.\n\n\n_Prayer and the Life of Devotion_\n\nA second discipline of the responsible Christian is the discipline of\nprayer and devotion. We cannot live in relation to God and serve Him if\nwe do not communicate with Him. Prayer is one of the indispensable forms\nof the dialogue between man and man, man and God, and God and the world.\nUnfortunately, however, many people, including some clergymen, have\ngiven up prayer, because it seems unrealistic and unfruitful in this\nscientific age. A part of our trouble may be that we tend to separate\nour acts of prayer from our life of devotion. Or, to use a concept we\nhave employed earlier, we separate the forms of prayers from the\nvitality which provides the life of devotion. Both public and private\nprayer lose their vitality by this separation of form from life, and by\nthe separation of God from the world, so that we make Him the monarch of\nreligion instead of the creator and redeemer of life. Because of our\nbelief in love as God's chosen relation to the world and in the\nincarnation of love in the personal, it becomes possible for our prayers\nand worship to be quickened through our devotion to the purposes of God\nin the world.\n\nAn analogy may help us here. Every relationship has its devotional\nrituals and observances which are important to it. Husband and wife, for\ninstance, because of their love and devotion to each other, develop\nlittle rituals and ways of doing that are designed to express their\ndevotion to each other. They come together for this purpose. There is\nthe kiss, the touch of the hand, the gifts on special occasions and\nthose which come as surprises; their physical union is the symbol and\ninstrument of their spiritual union and becomes the sacrament of their\nrelationship as persons. But these acts of love presuppose and depend\nupon their over-all and lifelong devotion to each other in everything\nthat they do. Their life of devotion to each other provides the content\nand drive for their acts of devotion, and their acts of devotion are a\nmeans of expressing their life of devotion. Their life of devotion needs\nthese acts of devotion, and without the life of devotion their acts of\ndevotion will dry up and become meaningless.\n\nSo it is in our relation to God. We cannot fall on our knees and cry\nwith any meaning: \"O God, O Father, O Judge, O Savior,\" if our whole\nlives are not lived in the context of the meaning of these exclamations.\nThen our words become empty and cannot rise above our lips, and we are\novercome by the despair and futility of our prayers. Prayer may not be\nrecovered by going to a school of prayer to learn various techniques and\nkinds of prayer, but by rekindling our devotion to the people and the\nworld for whom Christ died. Then, by practicing our acts of devotion in\nthe context of such a life of devotion, we may rediscover the meaning of\nprayer. Our acts of devotion cannot be quickened by the intensification\nof our prayer activity alone. Many people who are frantically trying to\nwhip up their prayer life would do better to get up off their knees and\ngo out and do something about their loveless, purposeless, and undevoted\nlives. The devotion of the so-called \"children of darkness\" to the\npursuit of their scientific or industrial purposes may be more\nimpressive than the vain babblings of the so-called \"children of God\"\nabout their souls. The trivial concerns of some religious people stand\nin uncomplimentary contrast to the heroism of the researcher's devotion\nto his project and to the scientist's devotion to his experiment.\nPerhaps the purposes of God are more served by them than by us, although\nby them His purposes may not be served consciously.\n\nHow can the life of devotion and the acts of devotion be brought\ntogether? When employer and labor leader meet to work out the problems\nof fair employment, they may do so either as a necessary part of their\nbusiness, which of course it is, or as a way of expressing their\ndevotion to God. God's love is concerned with justice between employer\nand employee, and the employer and the labor leader participate in the\nwork of God in the world by their devotion to these problems. This is\nboth their way of being responsible businessmen and citizens, and their\nway of loving God and assuming responsibility for Him. To whatever\ndegree they recognize this as being true, they will find satisfaction\nand meaning in the offering of their effort as an act of reverence to\nGod, together with a private prayer for His guidance that each may be\nopen not only to what God is trying to do through him, but open also to\nwhat He is trying to do through the other.\n\nIn our acts of devotion, therefore, we pray for a life of devotion in\nwhich we may be the instruments of God's purposes in the incarnations of\nHis Spirit. We pray also for others, for our children, for our pupils,\nfor our associates, whether they be employees, peers or superiors, that\nthey too may be incarnations of God's Spirit and instruments for the\naccomplishment of His purpose.\n\nActs of devotion, in the context of this kind of life of devotion,\nchange the whole focus of human relations and get them off their\nself-centered, competitive, and alienating basis. Acts of devotion are\nrevitalized by being restored to a relation to the life of devotion, and\nthe life of devotion is given an opportunity in acts of devotion to\narticulate its meaning, and to be guided and renewed in the dialogue\nbetween God and man as expressed in worship. And the union of the acts\nof devotion with the life of devotion will illumine anew for us the\nmeaning of daily life, and our relationship with one another. It will\nimprove our dialogue with one another and with God.\n\n\n_The Practice of Creativity_\n\nA third discipline to be practiced by the person through whom the\nSpirit would work is the cultivation of creative activity. By the\ndiscipline of creativity, I mean the discipline of learning and\nperfecting some skill in art or music or handicraft or sport in which\nthere is opportunity to co-ordinate motor and mental powers and to gain\ntherefrom some sense of achievement. A creative approach to life, of\ncourse, is a part of a life of devotion. Creative activity is\nindispensable to the health of the human soul, especially in this day\nwhen there is an increasing gap between our efforts and their result.\n\nMothers are often frustrated and unhappy because they do not see\nimmediately in their children the good results of their long and painful\nefforts in their behalf. Teachers can work with a pupil for months and\nyears and still not have a clear-cut sense of achievement. The man in\nhis office may be but a part of a huge organization, and the results of\nhis labors are neither conclusive nor a source of immediate satisfaction\nto him. The researcher may have to work for years before he achieves the\nresults for which he is looking. Indeed, he may never gain them for\nhimself, because the work that he does may only lead to the work of\nothers, and still others will reap the harvest. Then there are many\nengaged in work from which little sense of achievement can be gained,\nand yet it is necessary work and provides them with a living. Lack of\nresponse or delayed response to human effort can be profoundly\nfrustrating to the human spirit, and frustrated people do not make good\ninstruments for the expression of love. It is imperative, therefore,\nthat those who would be lovers of man and God should find substitute\nways in which to close the gap between their effort and their\nachievement.\n\nThe person who has a sense of creative outlets is one, therefore, who\nhas greater powers of endurance, patience, and courage with which to\nface the challenges and threats of life. He is apt to be more free to\nlove, and he will grow old more gracefully.\n\nThe discipline of creative action needs to be planned, time needs to be\nallowed for it, and those activities chosen which are feasible and\nappropriate to the person and his circumstances. We can learn to plan\nahead so that from time to time we are prepared to undertake new\nprojects. An elderly person of the writer's acquaintance began, during\nhis sixties, to learn something new each year. The result was that his\nspirit remained youthful and his interest in life was kept alive. Not\nonly is this kind of activity fun, but also it is a way by which to keep\noneself open to the possibilities of life. It becomes a way in which one\ncan live devotionally and realize within himself and in his relations\nwith others the image of the creative God by Whom he was created.\n\n\n_Relationship as Resource_\n\nWe come now to a consideration of the quality of relationship that\nnurtures persons. We discussed this earlier from the point of view of\nthe child's need to be loved, his need to love, and his need to have his\nefforts to love welcomed. But now we turn to a discussion of\nrelationship as a resource from the point of view of the one who is\ngiving the love. We are thinking of the parent, the teacher, the pastor,\nor any other person who makes himself responsible for others.\n\nIt is curious how little we think of our relationship with one another\nas a resource. When someone comes to us who is in trouble, we often say,\n\"I wish I could think of something to do or say that would help him,\"\nnot realizing that the greatest thing we can do is to be a person in\nrelation to him. Here again we realize the meaning of the incarnation.\nEveryone who hopes to participate in the life of Christ in the world\ntoday is called to be a person in relation to others, and whatever he\nthinks to do or say should be an expression of what he is.\n\nIf we say or do something that is helpful to others, it is because we\nare really present to them, really hear what they are trying to say, and\nthey know that we are with them. On the other hand, we all have had the\nexperience, when we were in trouble and needed help, of having would-be\nadvisers and comforters make all kinds of suggestions and verbalize all\nkinds of would-be comforting thoughts, but have lacked the feeling that\nthey were really with us. I sometimes have the impression that we like\nthe idea of being helpful persons, but dislike the demand and\ndisturbance that goes with it. It is easier to be depersonalized and\nprofessional, but professionalism is the enemy of relationship.\n\nProfessionalism is the conduct of a relationship for its own sake or for\nthe sake of the \"helping\" person who is conducting it, rather than for\nthe one for whom it was intended. Physicians, for instance, exhibit\nprofessionalism when they practice medicine without concern for the\npatient. Teachers exhibit professionalism when they teach their subject\nas an end in itself or for their own satisfaction. Ministers can be\nprofessional in relation to their parishioners. Parents can be\nprofessional in relation to their children. Any relationship can\ndeteriorate into mere professionalism.\n\nWhat are some of the marks of professionalism? In the first place,\nprofessionalism is marked by condescension in which an attitude of\nsuperiority is evident. Parents are heard to say: \"Children are just\nchildren, you know. They don't know what they want; they don't know what\nthey're talking about.\" Attitudes of condescension are contradictory to\nthe concept of incarnation, which means to be a part of and identified\nwith another. Condescension, therefore, closes us to the possibility of\nbeing indwelt by the Spirit and from being the instruments of love.\n\nAnother mark of professionalism is its manipulative tendency. We push\npeople around and get them to do what we want them to do, because it is\neasier that way. \"Mother knows best,\" \"You do it because I tell you.\"\nObviously, the professional attitude is alienating, because people do\nnot like to be pushed around, and they will not be, if they can help it;\nand if they are, they resent it. Professionalism impoverishes\nrelationship because, for instance, neither the parent nor the child\ngives or receives. The effect of professionalism does not need to be\nspelled out in any greater detail, because we all have experienced and\nparticipated in it. We may more usefully turn our attention to a study\nof the character of relationship that is the source of life.\n\n\n_The Values of Mutuality_\n\nPersonal growth is nurtured best in relationships in which the quality\nof mutuality makes growth a possibility for both the child and the\nparent, the pupil and the teacher. If growth occurs on one side, it must\ntake place also on the other. If parent or teacher does not grow, then\nwe must conclude that the relationship is not mutual and that the child\nwill not prosper either. Mutuality means that the teacher and pupil, or\nparent and child, are open to each other. When one speaks, he expects to\nbe heard by the other.\n\nCommunication inevitably takes place in a relationship of mutual\nexpectancy. Communication produces a personal encounter in which one\naddresses and the other responds, and a real meeting occurs. We cannot\nmake this kind of personal meeting take place. We can only prepare\nourselves for it, which is one way of thinking of prayer. When we\npractice expectancy in our relationships, we are preparing ourselves for\npossible depth meetings that may take place between others and\nourselves. Preparation means ridding ourselves of prejudices and\npreconceptions, fears and anxieties, ulterior motives and purposes, in\norder that we may speak the word of love and truth to others, and really\nhear the word of love and truth that they speak to us. In similar\nfashion, we may prepare ourselves to be open to whatever God may speak\nto us through persons or situations during that day. Finally, because we\nhave thus prepared ourselves for a real meeting between people, we will\nnot so easily seek to manipulate and exploit them.\n\n\n_Mutual Attention_\n\nThe quality of mutuality calls for mutual attention. Those who would\ncall each other into being and be the instrument of God's love in human\nrelations must pay attention to each other. It is difficult to speak if\nwe do not have the listener's attention; it is difficult to listen if we\ndo not have the speaker's attention. Absence of mutual attention breaks\ndown communication. Sermons may not have the attention of the\ncongregation because the preacher's attention is fixed only on the\nsermon as a production, or on himself as a performer, and not on the\ncongregation that he is now addressing, and whose response is necessary\nif his sermon, as communication, is to be completed. Likewise, a child\nmay not hear the parent because the parent is not really paying\nattention to the child. We hear ourselves saying, \"Look here, you pay\nattention to me.\" We say it in desperation because we know that our\nangry command will not accomplish the desired result. The inattention\nthat we receive from one another discourages us personally and blocks\nthe possibility of the dialogue that might reunite us.\n\nHow can we secure the attention of others? The answer is simple: by\nbeing attentive. As a teacher I have found that if I am really attentive\nto my pupils, they pay attention to me. But if I am just doing a job and\nnot really concerned about them, they do not hear me because I am not\nhearing them. If we want attention we must be attentive. If we want love\nwe must love. If we want anything we must give it. This is a Christian\nprinciple. We cannot demand something and get it. Attention, then, is a\ngift that we give one another. We give the gift of attention and receive\nit in return. We have no automatic right to it, nor does anyone.\n\nAttentiveness is something that can be learned. We learn by having eyes\nthat see and ears that hear. Eyes, of course, are made for seeing and\nears for hearing, but we can learn also to hear with our eyes and see\nwith our ears. When I am seeking to understand another, for example, I\nfind that what I see in his face and manner helps me to understand what\nhe is saying; and, likewise, attentive hearing helps me to understand\nwhat he is also revealing in his face and manner. We pay attention by\nwatching the eyes, facial expressions, and behavior of people, by\nlistening for the question behind the question and for the meaning\nbehind the meaning, remembering that there is tremendous content behind\nwhat is said and shown. If we would be servants of love, we must have\nears that really hear and eyes that really see; and, like our Lord, hear\nand see deeply in order that the truth which men are really seeking may\nbe found. Such hearing and seeing was the gift of Christ to men, and\nshould therefore be the gift of Christians to men.\n\nIt follows, then, that the good teacher is one who, participating in a\nrelationship with our Master Teacher, can accept any question that a\nperson may bring, knowing that if he stays with it, he will be led, step\nby step, to that person's real concern. When the teacher gives that kind\nof attention, the students are more apt to respond relevantly, which is\ntheir attention to the teacher. Then the teacher has the wonderful\nexperience of mutual attention in which meaningful communication has\ntaken place. What I have said about teaching and the relationship\nbetween teacher and pupil is true of all relationships. The reward for\nthe gift of attention is that others will respond with clues in the form\nof questions or comments that will enable us to meet them at the point\nof the meaning of their life. Not only does this kind of listening\nprovide a basis for a highly significant curriculum for teaching, as we\nsaw earlier, but also a basis for true human community and\ncommunication. Our self-centeredness, however, gives us a natural pull\naway from attentiveness. But the Spirit of Christ Who, in drawing us to\nHim, draws us to one another, will make mutual attentiveness possible so\nthat two-way communication will become a reality for us.\n\nOne current objection to this kind of mutual attentiveness travels under\ntwo guises: one is the possibility of being offensively nosy and\nintrusive; the other is the fear of really violating the privacy of\nother people. Certainly, privacy should be respected, and we should not\nforce ourselves upon others, but attentiveness is not intrusiveness.\nEvery human being wants to be known and to know as a person, and in ways\nthat are both conscious and unconscious. We seek others that we may be\nknown and may know. Attentiveness is really alertness to the lonely cry\nof man, and respects rather than violates the individual's separateness\nand sanctity.\n\n\n_Mutual Respect_\n\nMutual respect is also a necessary quality in human relations. Respect\nfor oneself and for others is not as common as one might expect. We find\nself-concern and some concern for others, but not respect. Respect for\nothers is hard to maintain if one does not respect oneself, and it is\nappalling to realize what low estimates many people have of themselves.\nAlthough they may disguise from themselves and others their despair\nabout themselves in many ingenious ways, lack of self-respect\nnevertheless is characteristic of many people's self-image. Their view\nof themselves results largely from their experiences in relationship,\nmany of which we have already discussed. We may try to prevent the\ndevelopment of negative attitudes and feelings toward ourselves and our\nchildren, but no matter how loving we try to be, we shall inevitably\ncause some injury, distortion, and deprivation to the maturing person.\n\nWhat, then, is the answer to this human problem? If the effect of\ngrowing up is to produce in us misgivings about ourselves and others,\nhow can we acquire the self-respect and respect for others which is\nnecessary for those who would truly serve God and man? Since mutual\nrespect is a necessary condition for creative human relations, it is\nnecessary that the vicious circle of non-respect be broken by someone.\nIt is at this point that our participation in the re-creating life of\nGod in Christ, which is made possible by the presence and work of His\nSpirit in us, makes a decisive difference in our self-estimate.\n\nThe Incarnation is the affirmation of God's faith in His creation.\nChrist is an expression of God's faith in man and what He is able to do\nthrough man. The principle of mutuality, which we have been affirming in\nour present discussion, is true not only for the relation between man\nand man, but between man and God as well. For the love of God in Christ\naffirms our value as persons in His desire to work through the people\nwho will respond to His love, and shows His respect for what they can\ndo. God's love and respect for men was expressed through the person of\nJesus and continues to be expressed through persons in each generation.\nHis people, the servants of His Spirit, are the ones who will break the\nvicious circle of mutual non-respect, and give the gift of mutual\nrespect.\n\nWe can respect ourselves, therefore, because God shows His respect for\nus by loving and working through us. When we have a great task to do\nthat calls for the courage and heroism of love, we can take a chance and\nset ourselves to the task because our faith in God makes it possible to\nhave faith in ourselves and in those whom we would love. When we let our\nmisgivings deter us so that we turn away from the challenges of love, we\nnot only repudiate ourselves, but also turn our backs on God's affirming\njudgment of us.\n\nMutual respect has some identifiable characteristics. First, we must\nrespect one another as autonomous, deciding persons. We cannot make our\nchildren and others do what we may think they ought to do. We can only\nmeet them with whatever resources we have, and out of respect for their\nown power of decision and action leave them free to make their response.\nThen, when they have made it, we must respect it even though they may\nnot be doing what we want them to do or doing it in the way we think\nbest. Our decisions and way of life will not work for others.\n\nWe must also respect one another's dependence. But respect for others'\ndependence should not increase it; that is, we should try to meet their\nneed, but not exploit it. Some years ago I was invited to lead a clergy\nconference on the subject of pastoral counseling. During the opening\ndinner before the beginning of the sessions, I sat next to a minister\nwho tried to impress me with how much he knew about pastoral counseling.\nAmong other things, he said, \"You know, it's a wonderful thing to stand\nup before my congregation on Sunday morning and be able to count the\nincreasing number of people who depend upon me for my pastoral care.\"\nThe temptation to exploit human need is insidious, and we have all\nsuccumbed to it many times and in many ways. That pastor might better\nhave rejoiced in those of his congregation who, in spite of their\ndependence and need, were able to use his help in their own independent\nway and thus grow stronger and more resourceful. Likewise, we may\nminister to the needs of our children and accept their dependence in\nways that demonstrate our respect for them and our expectation that they\nwill become more responsible.\n\nMutual respect also calls for respect of others who must answer for\ntheir own lives. While it is true that we are dependent upon God and His\nlove for us, our response as individuals is a necessary complement to\nwhat He has done. The source of our life and of our redemption is in\nGod, but we have to respond, and our responsible action makes complete\nwhat God has done for us. Therefore, we respect ourselves as having\nwithin ourselves the power of answer for our own lives. Mutual respect\nfor one another as responsible beings increases our self-respect, and,\nconversely, our growing self-respect increases the respect we have for\nothers.\n\n\n_Mutual Trust_\n\nMutual trust is a third necessary quality in human life. As we saw\nearlier, nothing can happen in any relationship where there is not\ntrust, and yet, lack of trust is everywhere prevalent. The great\nquestion is: How can we trust when we have such strong feelings of\nmistrust not only of persons, but also of the process of life? I have\noften had these misgivings as a teacher when, beginning with new\nstudents, I wondered how we could go through the crises of learning\nagain. Where would I find the strength and courage for the challenges?\nWould they respond to their opportunities and resources? Parents have\nthe same questions when they think of their children and wonder if,\nafter all the years of care, they will turn out all right. Sometimes we\nbecome overwhelmed at the sheer weight and endlessness of our\nresponsibilities, and in those moments we become profoundly\ndiscouraged. The need of love is desperate, and we feel wholly unequal\nto meeting that need. How wonderful it would be if we could have more\nconfidence in ourselves and in others, and likewise in the processes of\nlife to which we must commit ourselves. The answer to this longing is in\nthe old, but ever new, affirmation that those who have faith in God can\nhave faith in man and in the relationships of life.\n\nAs we read Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, we may notice that he\nseems to have been more confident of them than they were of themselves.\nYet, his confidence in them was not so much in them as it was in the\nHoly Spirit. Because of the Spirit, he had reason to have confidence in\nwhat the Spirit would do among, in, and through them. Along this same\nline, a teacher made the following comment about his experience in one\nof his classes: \"On one occasion I was suffering from some agenda\nanxieties, afraid that the members of the class, in the course of their\ndiscussion, would not arrive at some important and necessary insights. I\nwas tempted to make sure that they saw certain things in the subject\nthat I felt they ought to see, but fortunately I was restrained from\ninterfering. Instead, I had an exciting morning hearing all the things\nthat I wanted to say said by them. It was a great experience! This\nillustrates how important it is for us to keep ourselves from meddling,\nand to have confidence in the Spirit. Then the truth appears in the\nmidst of us much more powerfully than if we handed it out, because when\nit appears out of the midst, it comes with authority, it comes with\ndepth, it is memorable. The truth that comes to us in this way makes us\nfree. The moral is obvious: Let us trust what God is trying to\naccomplish in us, and therefore trust one another.\"\n\nTo trust in the Spirit's working through dialogue does not mean that we\nshall be successful in all our endeavors. People's response to being\ntrusted is not dependable or consistent. Man's response to God's trust,\nexpressed in the life of Christ, produced the crucifixion. We all have\nhad the experience of having our trust in others betrayed. This tempts\nus to become bitter, to lose faith in man, and to lose faith in God. But\nthese responses are not a contradiction of trust; they are a part of the\ncurriculum of trust. Trust, if it is to do its full work, must include\nmistrust, and faith must include doubt. I am helped to accept this\ninsight because of the awareness of the doubt that is so much a part of\nmy own faith which God accepts as a part of me and which gives my faith\nsomething to do. After all, faith is for doubt, courage is for anxiety,\nlove is for hate. Instead of resenting hate, anxiety, doubt, and\nmistrust, we should accept them as a part of life.\n\nWe are called by the divine love to be lovers, called by God to be His\nservants, called by the Saving Person to be His person in the realm and\nthe relationship of the personal. We are precious and important to one\nanother and to God. We have a responsibility for others that must be met\nby our first being responsible for what we are in ourselves, the\ninstrument for the revelation, in personal terms, of the power of love.\nIt is imperative, therefore, that if we are to love others as we love\nGod, we must love ourselves as being infinitely precious to God and\nourselves, and indispensable because we have responded to a means of\nsalvation for one another.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nLOVE IN ACTION\n\n    \"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us:\n    and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.\"--_1 John 3:16_\n\n\nWe come now to the climax of our study. Love must lay down its life;\nthat is, it must give itself. The question then is: What is the mode and\nplace of its self-giving? Under this heading I want to consider the\nnature of communication, evaluate the church as an agent of\ncommunication, and dwell on the implications of our study for church\nunity.\n\n\n_The Importance of Communication_\n\nCommunication is essential to the expression of love and indeed to life\nitself. Where there is love, there must be communication, because love\ncan never be passive and inactive. Love inevitably expresses itself and\nmoves out toward others. When communication breaks down, love is blocked\nand its energy will turn to resentment and hostility. One of the\ngreatest of tragedies occurs when the partners of a relationship break\noff their communication with each other. Without communication, the\npossibilities for a relationship become hopeless, the resources of the\npartners for the relationship are no longer available, the means for\nhealing the hurts that previous communication may have caused are no\nlonger present; and each, when he recovers from his need to justify\nhimself and hurt the other, will find himself in a bottomless pit of\nloneliness from which he cannot be pulled except by the ropes of\ncommunication, which may or may not be capable of pulling him out again\nbecause of their weakened condition. Many of us know what it means to be\nin a foreign country where we cannot speak the language, but the\nloneliness of that condition is as nothing compared to the loneliness\nthat is the product of an alienation that has been produced by either\nirresponsible use of the means of communication or a willful refusal to\nemploy them.\n\nIf there is any one indispensable insight with which a young married\ncouple should begin their life together, it is that they should try to\nkeep open, at all cost, the lines of communication between them.\nEveryone needs and should have premarital counseling, if only to help\nthem to this all important insight. Here is a place where the church's\nministry needs to be strengthened, since so many people turn to the\nchurch to have their marriages solemnized. Before each marriage is\nperformed, the minister should meet with the couple and help them\nprepare for the relationship, and he should include in that preparation\nthe guidance that will help them to understand how indispensably\nimportant to its preservation, and, therefore, to their life together,\nare all the means of communication between them. Fortunately, more and\nmore ministers are assuming this responsibility; and fortunately, also,\nmore and more seminaries are providing instructions that teach\nministers how to minister helpfully at this strategically important\ntime. But much more needs to be done. Many marital breakdowns due to\nfailure of communication could be alleviated, if not prevented, by\ngiving young couples assistance when they are beginning their life\ntogether.\n\nBut communication is indispensable in all relationships, and not only in\nthe personal ones like marriage. In labor disputes, for instance, the\nbargaining relationship breaks down when either one or both parties\nabandon the attempt to communicate with the other. Therefore, we may\nconclude, in paraphrase of the Scriptures: If any man says that he loves\nGod and will not try to communicate with his brother, he is a liar!\n\nBut what is communication, and why is it so difficult to achieve? Most\npeople seem to think of communication as getting a message across to\nanother person. \"You tell him what you want him to know.\" This concept\nproduces a one-way verbal flow for which the term \"monologue\" is\ndescriptive. Much of the church's so-called communication is\nmonological, with preachers and teachers telling their hearers, both\nadults and children, the message they think they should know. The\ndifficulty with monological activity is that it renders the hearer\npassive. It assumes that he is a receptacle into which the desired\nmessage may be poured. It eliminates the possibility of his active\nparticipation in the formulation of the message, and seems not to heed\nthat a part of the message is in the person who is to receive it.\n\nThose who have studied the dynamics of communication and the process by\nwhich it occurs are convinced that the monological principle is\ncontradictory to the nature of communication, and as a method is the\nleast effective. Reflective observation of our own learning indicates\nthat communication is most effective when we become a part of the\nprocess and meet the message with our own content. Furthermore, the\nmonological principle is not one that was used by our Lord. He, Who was\nthe full incarnation of love, made people participants in the Good News\nthat He proclaimed. We think, for example, of His conversation with the\nwoman at the well, in the course of which she moved from her superficial\nunderstanding of water to His understanding of the water of life,\nwherein the meaning of her life was revealed to her.[21] Again, we think\nof the lawyer who put Him to a test by asking what he must do to inherit\neternal life, and our Lord drew him out in such a way that he answered\nhis own question.[22] The Gospels are full of such illustrations of our\nLord's method of communication. It is curious, therefore, that the\nchurch has settled for the opposite monological principle which is quite\nunequal to the task of conveying the full meanings of the gospel.\n\n\n_Communication Is Dialogue_\n\nOur Lord's method, which we may call the dialogical, has been vindicated\nby modern research into the dynamics of communication, which has\ndemonstrated conclusively that the to-and-fro process between teacher\nand pupil, between parent and child, provides the most dependable and\npermanent kind of education. What is that to-and-fro between one who\nknows and one who does not? The monological argument against the\ndialogical process is that the ignorant and untutored have nothing to\ncontribute, so that the addition of zero and zero equals zero. This kind\nof comment, which is made by surprisingly intelligent and otherwise\nperceptive people, and all too often by educators, demonstrates how\nlittle they know about the processes of learning. Nor does it follow\nthat the dialogical principle forbids the use of the monological method.\nThere is a place for the lecture and for direct presentation of content,\nbut to be most useful they should be in a dialogical context.\nFurthermore, it is quite possible for a person giving a lecture to give\nit in such a way that he draws his hearers into active response to his\nthought, and although they remain verbally silent, the effect is that of\ndialogue. As a matter of fact, one should not confuse the different\nmethods of teaching with the dialogical concept of communication. Both\nthe lecturer and the discussion leader can be either monological or\ndialogical, even though they are using different methods. The person who\nbelieves that communication, and therefore education, is dialogical in\nnature, will use every tool in the accomplishment of his purpose. When\nthe question needs to be raised, he may use the discussion method or\nperhaps some visual aid. When an answer is indicated, he may give a\nlecture or use some other transmissive resource. But his orientation to\nhis task is based on his belief that his accomplishments as a leader are\ndependent partly upon what his pupil brings to learning, and that for\neducation to take place their relationship must be mutual.\n\nWhat is it that the learner brings that is of such great value to the\nteacher? What possibly can the child have that the parent needs in order\nto help the child learn and mature? The child, and every person for that\nmatter, brings to every encounter meanings drawn from his previous\nexperience which, in one way or another, prepares him for what is to be\nlearned. In Chapter IV we considered some of the early, basic\nacquisitions of the individual; for example, the meanings of trust and\nmistrust acquired in his first year, of liberating autonomy or resentful\ndependence, and other meanings which influence to a high degree his\nopenness to the teacher and to what the teacher has to give. In addition\nto these basic meanings, he has a whole host of others which he has\npicked up from his previous experience: knowledge of people, of himself,\nof the world in which he lives, of the nature of things, all of which he\nuses in response to the approach of parent, teacher, friend, or whoever\nmay be apt to confront him with new truth.\n\nWe need to remember that the meanings the learner brings are far from\ncomplete and mature, and that he is in the process of growing and\nbecoming more adequate. He wants to learn, but he does not want to learn\nat the price of his own integrity. In learning he wants to have the\nsense of acquiring new powers. Any approach to him that seems to\ndiminish him in any way closes him as a responsive, learning person.\nFurthermore, his experience thus far and its meaning produce in him\nquestions for which he would like to have answers. The individual,\ntherefore, brings to his meeting with others certain beliefs, attitudes,\nunderstandings, knowledge, and questions, which, in one way or another,\nhave prepared him or closed him to learning. A good teacher,\naccordingly, pays attention to what his pupil brings.\n\nThe teacher (and here I am not thinking of the professional teacher\nonly) first makes it his business to find out about his pupil or about\nthe person with whom he wishes to communicate. As teacher, he needs to\nknow as much about his pupil as he needs to know about his subject. He\nwants to help him ask his questions, so that what is communicated will\nbe an answer to his questions. All too often what we offer as answers\nfail because they are addressed to questions which have not been asked,\nand, therefore, do not have meaning for them. The parent and teacher,\ntherefore, should seek to call forth and formulate the understandings of\nchildren in order that they may more readily hear and understand the new\ntruth that is being presented.\n\nThe need to be aware of the meanings that each person brings to his\neducational encounters is equally relevant to disagreements between\nadults. Many a husband and wife, for instance, fail to deal with a\ndisagreement or quarrel constructively because each is thinking only in\nterms of the meanings he brings to the conflict, instead of trying also\nto discover the concerns and meanings his partner brings. We all know\nthat sometimes the real cause of a quarrel is not expressed, with the\nresult that the quarrelers can only deal with the superficial meanings\nof the conflict and in ways that further alienate them from each other.\nThe responsibility for communication in such instances calls for each\npartner to pay attention to the meanings that the other one brings to\nthe conflict, and try also to help the other say what he means, for his\nown and the sake of the other. In this way, constructive communication\nmay be resumed.\n\n\n_The Purpose of Communication_\n\nThe question now needs to be raised: What is the purpose of\ncommunication? There is a tendency on our part to regard consensus and\nassent as the goals of communication. The attempt to get people to sign\non the dotted line, as it were, makes our communications aggressive and\nimperialistic. The hearer is not respected as an autonomous, deciding\nperson, and this may cause him to decide against the message because of\nthe alienating way in which it is being presented. When the gospel is\npreached without respect for the autonomy and integrity of the\nindividual, the effect is alienating. The same results occur when\nparents act imperialistically in relation to the educational\nopportunities in the home.\n\nThe goal of communication is not to secure assent and agreement, but is,\nrather, to help the individual make a decision and translate it into\naction. We have to face the possibility that we may not like his\ndecision, but that it may be the decision he must make now. For the\nmoment, the child may say \"No\" to some admonition or instruction that\nhis parent is giving him, which may seem like a breakdown and failure of\ncommunication. On the other hand, if it is the child's own decision and\nif the parent can respect it, while at the same time protecting the\nchild from its unfortunate consequences, it may be a step in the process\nby which the child will eventually say \"Yes.\" Reflection will reveal how\noften we have arrived at an affirmative response by the route of a\nnegative one. The negative response was then seen as part of the process\nby which we moved toward accepting a truth.\n\nPreparation for church membership of both young and old needs to employ\nthis concept of communication. The instruction of many church members\nhas been so ambiguous that they are not clear about what they have\ndecided for or against. After all, we cannot say \"Yes\" to anything\nwithout also saying \"No\" to other things. People who are prepared for\nchurch membership should understand and be able to state the reason for\nthe faith they affirm, and know what alternatives they rejected.\n\nThey need help also in discovering what their affirmations and denials\nmean for their way of life. Only then will they be able to make strong\nand enabling commitments. One reason for the uncertain witness of many\nso-called Christians and church members is that they have been persuaded\nto be Christians without either having that relationship or its\nalternatives explained to them. Young people in particular need help in\nknowing what they are choosing against in order that they may be\nunambiguously for what they have chosen. In an age when values are\nconfused and people's need for clear-cut loyalties is great, it is\ntragic that the church's communication is confused. Let us try,\ntherefore, to communicate in ways that will help people to speak their\nown \"yeas\" and \"nays\" with clarity and conviction.\n\n\n_The Agent of Communication_\n\nThis thought brings us naturally to a consideration of the church as the\nagent of communication. The church, as the fellowship of the Holy\nSpirit, is the instrument that God created to speak and act for Him in\neach generation. Our human response to His calling us to be His people\nand servants produced the church as an institution, with its\norganizational and denominational divisions. As any perceptive person\nrealizes, there is often conflict between the church as the fellowship\nof the Holy Spirit and the church as institution. As institution, the\nchurch faces the temptation of being more concerned about itself than\nabout God and His purposes for His people. As we saw in Mr. Churchill's\nremarks, in Chapter I, the church can become so preoccupied with itself\nthat it loses its sense of responsibility for its mission to the world.\nWe saw also that the relationship between the church and the world is\nintended to be close, for the world is the sphere of God's action, and\nthe church is the means of His action. The church, therefore, must be\nfound at work in the world, and must feel within itself the tension\nbetween the saving purposes of God and the self-centered purposes of\nman. This is what might be called creative tension.\n\nThe maintaining of this creative tension requires that the church as\ninstitution be open constantly to the reforming vitality of the Holy\nSpirit, and church people should be open-minded, adaptable, and ready to\nlive for God experimentally. They must be prepared to face the crises of\nlife as they occur individually and socially with courage and a desire\nto lead the way for their fellow men. Instead of this, we find that\nchurch people have the reputation of being ultra-conservative,\nreactionary, and lovers of the _status quo_. The children of light, as\nit were, are being dragged along by the children of darkness, and are\nbeing compelled by them to face up to responsibilities which they ought\nto have assumed in the name of God years before anyone else. Of course,\nthe record of the church is not altogether negative. In many places the\nleadership and the membership of the church have courageously pioneered\nthe way in times of crisis and change. This experimental approach to\nlife and crisis ought to be more characteristic of the church than it\nis. Where it does not exist, it is safe to assume that the membership is\nserving itself rather than the Spirit of God.\n\nThe church that is preoccupied with itself can no more express love for\nothers than can a self-centered individual. Church members who are\nprimarily concerned about the maintenance of a church and its\neducational unit on a particular corner in a certain town create a\ndiseased organization. It suffers from a condition which, in an\nindividual, would be called hypochondria. It is necessary, of course,\nfor an individual to give some attention to his diet, cleanliness, and\nhealth in order that he may live his life and do his work. Likewise, the\nchurch needs to give some attention to its maintenance, for it needs to\nbe nourished in its gathered life in order that it may do its work in\nits dispersed life.\n\nThe decisive role of the church is not in the church's church, but in\nthe world: ministering to people at the beginning of and during their\nmarried lives, accompanying them in and through their marital failures,\nand helping them to learn from their experiences so that if they marry\nagain they may do so with more understanding and resourcefulness;\nguiding them in the raising of their children, and helping them to\ncorrelate the insights of the social sciences that throw light on the\nnature and meaning of human development, especially the ultimate or\nreligious meanings of that development; helping them find their place in\nthe world's work with as much meaning as possible, and nurturing in\nthem a faith and courage that makes it possible for them to face the\nconflicts, temptations, and sins of modern industrial life; standing by\nthem in all the crises that they encounter in the course of their human\nexistence; encouraging them to advance in company with the most creative\nminds on the frontier of human exploration and experimentation; and\nfearlessly traveling with them as they wrestle with the changing value\nstructures of each new generation, and guiding them in the use of their\nleisure. But most of all, in and through all of these ways, the church's\ntask is to try to reveal to men that, though their identity in the world\nmay be confused and lost, in their relationship with God they are known\nand loved. The church, as a fellowship of men, should exist not only to\nproclaim this truth in the abstract, but to live it in the sphere of the\npersonal and social.\n\n\n_Various Concepts of Ministry_\n\nEvery congregation and every member of a congregation needs to ask what\nimage of the church governs its life, because our images can be idols\nthat keep the church from being the instrument of God's action, and\nbecause that image can keep us from being persons in whom the Spirit of\nGod can be incarnate. Such an examination calls for that sort of\nrethinking of our conception of the ministry that the Reverend Mr. Gates\ncalled for in our first chapter. The conception of the ministry held by\nboth ministers and laymen will naturally reflect their conception or\nimage of the church. Here both the ordained member and the lay member\nare caught in the grip of stereotypes that threaten to stifle the\nvitality of the church's ministry. Especially is this true in a time\nlike our own, when the social order is undergoing radical changes.\n\nAll too often lay people assume that the problems of the ministry and of\nthe church belong to the clergy alone. Many conscientious ministers\ntoday, erroneously assuming this responsibility, are confused as to what\ntheir role is. The problem of ministerial roles belongs to the whole\nchurch. It is not easy in this time of transition for ministers to be\nsure of what is expected of them. They sense or see clearly that the old\nimages and patterns of the minister of the gospel do not fit the present\ntime, and, therefore, are not safe ones to follow. Nor do the unsettled\nconditions of our civilization give very clear-cut clues for the\nformation of new and relevant concepts of the ministry. Consequently,\nmany ministers, including far too many young ones, seek refuge in\ndifferent stereotypes which fail to serve the church, and only provide\nthem with the means of evading the real challenges of their task. What,\nthen, are some of these stereotypes?\n\nFirst, some ministers settle for a stereotype of the priesthood. They\nseek to recapture and transplant in our age an earlier and relevant\npriestly vitality that succeeds today only in assembling the dry bones\nor external forms of that role. Or, they may succumb to the preacher\nstereotype. Under the influence of that image, they think of the\npreacher as a performer, a sermon as a performance, and the congregation\nas an audience. That image is partly a product of the monological\nunderstanding of communication, and partly a result of the human need to\njustify oneself by an oversimplified function. The proclamation of the\nHoly Word as mere content and without dialogical intent is not true\npreaching of the gospel. Holy words were never meant to be used to\njustify ministerial function. The Word of God justifies us, but our\nwords about the Word of God do not justify us. Furthermore, the Living\nWord did not enter the world imperialistically, and that Word should not\nbe preached presumptively now, but with the expectation of having to\nengage the world responsibly. Still other ministers try to find a\ncontemporary concept of ministry by modeling themselves after one of the\nrespected patterns of our society: the business executive, the\nphysician, or the group therapist. But as controlling images of the\nchurch's ministry, these are not comprehensive, and they too tend to\nbecome constricting stereotypes.\n\nThen there is the stereotype of the local church, which is still thought\nof as a parish in a nineteenth-century neighborhood sense. In most\nplaces the parish community is no longer the center of people's common\nlife. The neighborhood in which the church is located is an area to\nwhich people come home from their varied activities in order to sleep.\nAnd for an increasing number of men whose work keeps them on the road,\neven sleeping at home occurs only on occasional week ends. These and\nother stereotypes stifle the full power of the ministry and keep it from\nbeing equal to today's task. Too many ministers, in consequence, feel\nalone and separated from their people, and are bewildered by the\ncomplexity of their work and the ambiguous results of their efforts.\n\nLay people, on the other hand, receive little help in overcoming their\nstereotypes of the ministry and gravitate to a concept of the church\nthat is hard to distinguish from a middle-class country club or a social\nservice center. Another complicating influence is the current emphasis\non the lay ministry. The general stress on the priesthood of all\nbelievers had made both clergy and laity less sure about the role of the\nclergy, even to the point, figuratively speaking, of seeming to unordain\nthe ordained, and without clearly defining the ministry of the lay\nmember.\n\nIs there an answer to these confusions and ambiguities? What can clergy\nand laity now do to find their present and new role in the life of the\nchurch and world? There is an answer to these questions which, if\nfollowed, will open the ministry of the whole church to the renewing\nvitality of the Holy Spirit.\n\nFirst, the role of the clergy and the concepts of it are the\nresponsibility of the whole church. But the clergy are more conscious of\nthe problems of the church and of the ministry, and they should,\ntherefore, share them with the laity. Ministers make the mistake of\nkeeping \"their\" problems, which are really the problems of the church,\nto themselves, instead of making sure that the rest of the church\nmembers are aware of and assuming responsibility for them.\n\nSecond, if the clergy are to share these concerns with the laity, they\nmust break through the stereotypes held by both groups as described\nearlier. There is evidence that both ministers and laity are suffering\nrestraints as a result of their false images of each other. The question\nis: Do the clergy dare to reveal themselves as spiritual leaders who do\nnot always know the answers, and who themselves need desperately to be a\npart of a church that is a supportive and accepting fellowship? When\nasked why they do not discuss problems of the church within the church,\nministers often reply: \"What would my people think of me? I'm supposed\nto be the answer man.\" The truth is that many laymen welcome being\nreleased from false images of the clergy.\n\nThird, ministers, therefore, need to be dialogists rather than\nmonologists. This might turn out to be the appropriate concept of their\nrole for this day. As representatives of the gospel, which was born of\nthe full meeting and full interchange between God and man in Christ, the\nminister must learn to engage in dialogue with his people, and to\nparticipate in that dialogue with God which goes on in their living. The\ngreat questions of the church and the ministry are not going to be\nsolved by the ordained ministers alone, but by the clergy and the laity\naccepting communication with each other as a part of their common\nministry, and together bringing the gospel into dialogue with the world.\n\nIt is imperative that ministers and people talk to each other deeply,\nnot about the housekeeping of the church, but about the church and its\nmessage, about its place in and relation to the world, and about its\nministry, including the respective roles of clergy and laity. This kind\nof persistent, continuing talk is imperative for two reasons: first, it\nbrings out and correlates the truth that is in man about these matters;\nand, second, the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of Christ to and through\nmen who give themselves to each other in earnest search for the truth.\n\n\n_The Church and the World in Dialogue_\n\nWe may conclude, therefore, that the problems of the ordained ministry\nin the world today are the problems of the church. Members of the\nchurch, including the clergy, must take the risks of communication,\nwhich are the risks of creativity, and talk with one another about their\nconcerns. We must do this with the expectation that God will speak and\nact through our dialogue together, so that it will become our dialogue\nwith Him. Out of this will come new insights and concepts for our\nrespective roles, with a new awareness of our task for Christ in the\nworld. It would seem, then, that our most effective starting point for a\nnew and relevant image of ourselves for our task today is that of men\nwho are in dialogue with God through their dialogue with their people.\nThe spirit of this dialogue, however, must be the Spirit of Christ. The\nform of the ministry needs to be rethought in each age, but it must be\nformed by a double focus on Christ's ministry and the need of the world\ntoday.\n\nSome of this dialogue, of course, has already been going on, and out of\nit certain insights have already appeared about the relation of the\nclergy and the laity. In the _gathered_ church, with the focus on the\nworship, pastoral, educational, and organizational life, the ordained\nmember is the chief minister and the lay members are his assistants.\nThis does not mean that the lay people are working for the pastor and\nthat their loyalty is to him. Instead, it means that both are working\ntogether for Christ and their loyalty is to Him. Within that\nrelationship the congregation has called a member, usually trained and\nordained, to direct it in performing the church's functions. The\nminister is entrusted, for example, with the educational work of the\nchurch. Some of his educational responsibility is delegated to the\norganization known as the church school. A few laymen are selected and\nprofessionally trained to be directors of Christian education; others\nfrom the congregation are trained to be the teachers, but, as such, they\nare serving as assistants to the one who is officially responsible for\nthat activity. Likewise, when laymen are used in church visitation, they\ndo so as assistants to the minister, to whom this official\nresponsibility is delegated.\n\nOn the other hand, in the work of the _dispersed_ church, which is\nactive in and serving the world, the chief minister is the layman who,\nin the home or in the office, on the street or in the shop, in the\nschool or in the university, or wherever the work of the world is going\non, _is_ the church in that situation and must be the minister of Christ\nthere. The ordained man, in this aspect of the church's work, is the\nassistant or resource person.\n\nThis concept of the complementary relationship between the ordained and\nthe unordained should inform the church's gathered life. The sermon, the\npreparation for church membership, all adult education programs, and the\ngeneral ministry of the church, need to be conditioned by the thought\nthat the purpose of the official teachers and preachers and\nadministrators of the church's program is to prepare and guide the\npeople of God in the performance of their work _in the world_, as\nrepresentatives of Christ there. Resources need to be created in the\nchurch's program whereby people can come back from their ministry in the\nworld, be helped to understand what has happened, and by reflection upon\nit learn how more effectively to be the church in the world. For this\nreason, seminars for parents need to be held in order that they may\nreceive assistance in understanding their role as ministers of the\nchurch in the home. Seminars for businessmen and professional people\nalso are indicated for the same reason. A point of focus for all church\nmembership courses should be the question: When you become a member of\nthe church, how are you going to exercise your ministry in the world?\nThis orientation could be the source of a new evangelism that would make\nits witness heard in the depth and detail of human life.\n\n\n_The Reunion of the Church_\n\nWe turn now to consider some of the implications of what we have been\nthinking for the reunion of the church. If the church is the instrument\nof God's action in the world, and its members are supposed to be the\nincarnations of His Spirit by means of which He accomplishes His\npurpose, the condition, as well as the concept of the church, is\nimportant. One of the tragedies of Christendom is the fact that the body\nof Christ is so divided and its parts live in such competitive\nrelationship that the purposes of God are obscured and blocked.\nMovements toward reunion have borne fruit, with the result that some\ndenominations have resolved their differences and reunited. But much\nmore progress needs to be made, if the church is to be equal to the\ndemands that modern life is making on it for spiritual leadership.\n\nIn each denomination there are clergymen and laymen who have erroneous\nconcepts and understandings and expectations of the other denominations.\nI direct a training center which is attended by clergy and laymen from\nmany denominations. These people often are surprised to discover, as a\nresult of studying together the church's nature and purpose, how much\nthey have in common. They discover that doctrinal differences are not as\ngreat as they had thought, that there are no denominational differences\nbuilt into human nature or into human problems, and that they have many\nresources in common, namely, the God-given and redeemed resources of\nhuman relationships, the Scriptures, prayer, preaching, pastoral care,\nand teaching. Many of them have been heard to say, \"I am glad to have\nhad it revealed to me that in some ways our differences are more\napparent than real.\" This kind of insight, however, is not possible\nunless a situation is created in which representatives of different\ndenominations can begin to trust each other, and to think and\ncommunicate below the level of their differences. It is possible to do\nthis, however, and more of it should be done. There is no reason why the\nlocal congregation should not invite neighboring congregations to come\ntogether with it for a study program for the purpose of finding their\ncommon brotherhood in Christ and their common responsibility for the\ncommunity in which they live. A divided church does not make a good\norgan for the communication of love.\n\nWe come now to the distinctive contribution of our discussion thus far\nin this matter of the unity of the church. The work of reunion, of\ncourse, is the work of the Holy Spirit. But our response to Him in\napproaching reunion should be centered in a study of His purposes for\nthe church _now_ and _in the future_, rather than on a reconciliation of\nthe _differences that occurred in the past_. It is exceedingly\ndifficult to undo the mistakes of the past and to change the rigid\nimages and patterns that have been forged by the misunderstandings of\nour predecessors. Merely trying to adjust them to each other will not\ndo. It is something else again to be willing to change these by giving\nourselves to a responsible consideration of what God wants His church to\nbe and to do _now_, and thus attempt the reunion in response to present\nand future values.\n\nThe images that Presbyterians and Methodists and Episcopalians and\nBaptists and Lutherans now have of themselves might be changed, thus\nmaking possible changes in their images of one another, and this would\ncertainly open the way to deeper levels of communication. Instead of\nthis, we have members of different denominations thinking rather rigidly\nabout themselves and others. Our identities and responsibilities are\naccepted in terms of differences that were laid down in the past, and\nmay be held independently of what God may be wanting His church to do in\nthis moment. The church is not the Kingdom of God; it is not the end of\nGod's action. It is a means to an end, and, as circumstances of human\nlife change, it is not inconceivable that God would like to have us make\nchanges in that instrument for man's salvation which He created.\n\nProposals for the reunion of the churches often arouse the fear that our\nrespective denominations, to which we are devoted, will be replaced by\nwhat some conceive of as a \"superchurch.\" Such an arbitrary replacement\nof church organization is not the objective of the unity movement.\nInstead, we should respond to the Spirit's prompting to keep our\ndenominational loyalties subject to our loyalty to Him, in order that we\nmay be open to whatever form of church life and action the Spirit may\nindicate for our generation. We are concerned about the church as the\nbody of Christ in our time. As His body, we must find our unity in Him;\nbut this may mean that we shall have to abandon some things that have\nseemed good. Some words of our Lord are hard to bear: \"He who loves\nfather or mother more than me is not worthy of me.\"[23] These words of\nour Lord are equally applicable to all other relationships, including\nour denominational ones. It does not follow, however, that our\ndenominational devotion is of itself disloyal to Christ, any more than\nour devotion to our loved ones is disloyal. We do need, however, to make\nsure that we love and serve Him, and not something or someone else. Our\nconcepts of ourselves and of others may need to be changed.\n\nThe changing of these images of ourselves and of others is not a\nresponsibility that belongs only to our top-level church leaders. Every\nChristian in every church in every part of the world must share it,\nbecause each person has a specific responsibility for his relationship\nwith his Christian brothers, by whatever name they may call themselves.\nThe parent who seeks to exercise his ministry in his relationship with\nhis child needs also to be open to his responsibility as a member of\nsome historic branch of the Christian church for the welfare of that\nchurch and the relationship of its separate parts. We cannot accept what\nwe have inherited in the form in which we inherited it. Our inheritance\nin many ways is precious and wonderful, but our human response can\ndeform it. Our church can be a means of fulfilling our discipleship, but\nit can also be an obstacle to it. Therefore, our membership and\nparticipation in a denomination needs to be kept under the constant\njudgment of God in order that we as members may serve Him more loyally.\n\nWe are Christ's, brought into this relationship by His love, and we can\ngrow in this relationship only as we are guided by His Spirit.\nEverything else is secondary to this. But all other relationships, if\noffered to Him and illumined and corrected by His Spirit, can be\nwonderful also, because then they too become a part of His means of\nreuniting, by His love, men with one another and with Him.\n\n\"In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent\nhis Son.... We love, because he first loved us.\"[24]\n\n  [21] John 4:5 ff.\n  [22] Luke 10:25 ff.\n  [23] Matt. 10:37.\n  [24] 1 John 4:10, 19.\n\n\n\n\nabout the author\n\n\nReuel Lanphier Howe is recognized as one of the foremost counselors in\nAmerica in the field of personal relationships. The authoritative\nconclusions growing out of his research are presented in this book with\nearnestness and understanding.\n\nHe was born in the state of Washington and received his B.A. degree from\nWhitman College in Walla Walla. From the Divinity School of the\nProtestant Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, he received the degrees of\nS.T.B., S.T.M., and S.T.D. He was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal\nChurch in 1929 and 1930. Whitman College and the Chicago Theological\nSeminary have each honored him with the D.D. degree.\n\nIn 1931 he became Vicar of St. Stephen's Church, Elsmere, N.Y. Then, for\nabout twenty years, he was on the faculties of the Divinity School of\nthe Protestant Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, and the Protestant\nEpiscopal Theological Seminary in Virginia. In both of these situations\nhe developed a program of clinical pastoral training to prepare the\nclergy to minister to the needs of people. He has served on many\nimportant committees and boards and has lectured extensively, both in\nAmerica and abroad.\n\nPresently he is the director of the Institute for Advanced Pastoral\nStudies, in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., a postordination training center\nfor ministers of various denominations who have been in the ministry for\nat least three years. He takes part in many significant educational\nprograms outside his denomination. One of Dr. Howe's major interests is\nin the correlation of the insights of theology with those of the social\nand medical sciences. The enthusiasm with which his lectures and books\nhave been received points to his popularity as a thinker and writer.\n\n\n\n\n   +---------------------------------------------------------------+\n   |                                                               |\n   | Transcriber's notes: Obvious spelling/typographical and       |\n   | punctuation errors have been corrected after careful          |\n   | comparison with other occurrences within the text and         |\n   | consultation of external sources.                             |\n   |                                                               |\n   | page 12 line -3: changed \"For God so loved the world--\" to    |\n   |                          'For God so loved the world--'\"      |\n   | page 111: corrected printer's error where lines -14, -13, -12 |\n   |           should have appeared as lines -13, -12, -14         |\n   |                                                               |\n   +---------------------------------------------------------------+","title":"Herein is Love: A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Love in Its Bearing on Personality, Parenthood, Teaching, and All Other Human Relationships.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":39336}