If your calendar read 1958 and you went to a Baptist church about anywhere in the US your experience would have been consistent. Most Baptist churches looked about the same. Fast forward to 1998 and you’d likely have two or three different possible experiences, but you would know immediately whether this was a contemporary seeker-sensitive church, a traditional church, or a church somewhere in between. Now in 2018 you cannot assume what the church service will be like based upon Baptist being in the name.
This isn’t what is unique to our place in history. The truth is, a Baptist church in 1928 would have been different than a church in 1958. And a Baptist from 1898 would likely be a bit out of sorts with his experience of 1958 church. But here is where we find a unique challenge to the church in 2018. A child who was ten years old in 1898 would have been 70 years old in 1958. If he lived to see it, it is true that church would have been quite a bit different for him. But the average life-expectancy was just under 69 years old in 1958. To put it a bit tactless, this fella would have had one foot in the grave. But in 2018, when life expectancy is pushing 80 years, this 70 year old is still a contributing member to your local congregation.
Combine our rising life-expectancy with the shortening of generations (brought on by technology) and you’ve got multiple generations working together in a local church. This can be, and should be, a phenomenal blessing to our local churches. As one who loves and values history, I believe it is absolutely to our benefit to have the perspective of multiple generations. But it certainly creates a bit of friction when we start discussing church culture and personal preferences.
This makes me think of what was happening in Rome in the first century. The earliest makeup of the church in Rome would have been predominately Jewish. They had a certain way of doing things. A Jewish looked at the world a bit differently than a Gentile Christian. Then Emperor Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome. This left a massive vacuum in the local church which was filled by Gentile Christians. For about a decade the church in Rome was predominately Gentile. Then the Jews were able to come back. This led to friction. Would the church look Jewish? Or would the church look Gentile?
That’s similar to what we might face in our local churches today. What generational preferences will the church reflect? This is where Paul’s argument in Romans can help us. What Paul does from the very first chapter is work towards putting Jew and Gentile in the exact same position before Christ. We are all guilty before God, we are justified the same way, we are sanctified the same way, we share in the eternal purposes of God, therefore we are to offer our bodies (plural) as a living sacrifice (singular). We are united by the work of Christ.
What Paul is saying is that God is building something quite different. He isn’t building a Gentile church or a Jewish church. He is building a Christian church. In the same way he isn’t building a church beholden to the 1950’s nor is he building one beholden to millennials. Our unity is in the gospel. Our expressions of the faith will likely be different. Jewish Christians would still look at things through a different lens than Gentile Christians. But ultimately all believers look at the world through the lens of Christ. The more this happens the better we are.
Multi-generations have great value. It’s a beautiful testimony to the faithfulness of God to all generations. Each generation has a way of expressing and emphasizing a multi-faceted and beautiful God. We need each expression to faithfully worship. But we must see that our fundamental unity and identity isn’t found in our heritage or our generation. Our fundamental identity is found in Christ. And Paul’s argument in Romans helps us see that.
—
Photo source: here
