operational definition of grace?

[Mike Schutz]

We have begun to see our faith community embrace a significant culture change, one that many of us here are familiar with. We are moving from a time line of :

BEHAVE - BELIEVE - BELONG to BELONG - BELIEVE - BEHAVE.

As we live out this change, some of our operational definitions had to change. Most obviously, holiness needed to be redefined from rules to relationships. This seems to have gone well, with some considerable hiccups. Community needed to be redefined from like-acting and like-minded folks to those who are serious about remaining in relationship as we learn to be followers of Jesus. Church needed to be redefined from people who get together on Sundays (and other days as well), and who invite people to join them - yet otherwise limit their contacts with those outside the church, to people who live out their faith in the real world in relationships with as many other folks as possible.

One other concept we are considering - and it has been forced upon us as we try to live together - is what is grace in an intentional community? As we create expectations, how do we hold each other accountable for those expectations, encouraging growth and acknowledging the challenges of the journey.

What do you think?

[Billy Cox]

We have begun to see our faith community embrace a significant culture change, one that many of us here are familiar with. We are moving from a time line of :

BEHAVE - BELIEVE - BELONG to BELONG - BELIEVE - BEHAVE.

As we live out this change, some of our operational definitions had to change. Most obviously, holiness needed to be redefined from rules to relationships. This seems to have gone well, with some considerable hiccups. Community needed to be redefined from like-acting and like-minded folks to those who are serious about remaining in relationship as we learn to be followers of Jesus. Church needed to be redefined from people who get together on Sundays (and other days as well), and who invite people to join them - yet otherwise limit their contacts with those outside the church, to people who live out their faith in the real world in relationships with as many other folks as possible.

One other concept we are considering - and it has been forced upon us as we try to live together - is what is grace in an intentional community? As we create expectations, how do we hold each other accountable for those expectations, encouraging growth and acknowledging the challenges of the journey.

What do you think?

What exactly do you mean by 'intentional community'? How does that compare with 'organic community', or are they comparable?

Where I'm coming from in this question... I tend to see 'intentional' as a community in which, aside from the similarities in their faith journey or beliefs, most of the people might otherwise never know each other, let alone be in fellowship. In contrast, people within an organic community would have multiple points of commonality, not the least of which is geographical proximity. My relationship with most people on NazNet is a result of intentional community, but I'm not going to bump into Hans or Roland at my local Wal-Mart...if my house burns down tonight, I wouldn't find temporary shelter in Scott's guest bedroom tomorrow.

This is a question I am intensely interested in.

[Craig Laughlin]

This is really sad but... great questions and I'll be watching the thread. (Sorry for the cop out but I've taken several bites at this sort of thing without much satisfaction) I think actually implementing expectations and accountability is extremely difficult in a society that can fairly be described as radically individualistic.

[Todd Erickson]

I liked the quote I heard (read) on here once: If it can't be exploited, it isn't Grace.

If it's truly Grace, then we're going to trust that God is going to use it even if we get exploited, or fail, or look like fools in the process.

We had tornados hit Vilonia this past week (ask Kevin Rector for more exciting details) and we have folks from our church who live up there who didn't suffer any damage, and they were praising God this morning for his protection.

Does that mean that Kevin some how earned not being protected? Or, to borrow from C. S. Lewis, is it that by not sparing Kevin's house, people will be brought into contact with him and their lives changed that would not have had the same experience had they encountered these other folks?

At some point, we're only doing damage by asking these questions, rather than thanking God for His grace in any measure and continuing to live.

[Dale Cozby]

What exactly do you mean by 'intentional community'? How does that compare with 'organic community', or are they comparable?

Where I'm coming from in this question... I tend to see 'intentional' as a community in which, aside from the similarities in their faith journey or beliefs, most of the people might otherwise never know each other, let alone be in fellowship. In contrast, people within an organic community would have multiple points of commonality, not the least of which is geographical proximity. My relationship with most people on NazNet is a result of intentional community, but I'm not going to bump into Hans or Roland at my local Wal-Mart...if my house burns down tonight, I wouldn't find temporary shelter in Scott's guest bedroom tomorrow.

This is a question I am intensely interested in.

In response to the original post and this one:

I belong to Christ and as a consequence His church as well.
I believe in His story, His grace and His purpose for me.
I behave in ways that brings me into contact with others of like purpose(belief system and actions) This helps us to as a group love others..as Christ loved us.

But what if you don't belong to Christ? Does the system break down?
Not if those who belong and believe behave and do it right.

Intentional community places me in prison ministry, in the streets and in the homes of lost, lonely and frustrated people who often dislike their life, and their community enough to want to leave it behind and belong to mine. ....we share Christ by going intentionally to others who have no relationship with him.

In the opposite example, it strikes more of an organic community.
I conform to the behavior of the society around me to "belong" "When in Rome"
I give tacit agreement to their beliefs to fit in further.
I then belong to a group of people I may not actually like or agree with but tolerate.

My intentional communities:
Prison Ministry Group, Local Church, yes...Naznet, Pastor groups, etc.
My organic(unintentional) communites: public schools associations, neighbors, extended family members, secular co-workers, etc.

I think we can move people from unintentional to intentional as we share God's grace and allow, give permission and invite them to belong in our inner circles.

[Bob Carabbio]

Grace, regardless of any theological "Baggage", is quite simply "UNDESERVED FAVOR". That's true whether it GOD that's being discussed, or the neighbor next door.

Case in point - My son lives in a house, and recently the next door neighbor (Who just moved in) called him about his dog being in their yard. SO in the middle of a birthday party for his one-year old, my son went out to get the dog back in, and fix the fence and keep it in. While he's doing that the neighbor calls the animal warden who came and gave my son a citation.

My son was in the wrong to allow the dog to get out of his yard.

But obviously the neighbor WAS NOT manifesting any sort of "grace" toward my son, in calling the wrath of the Authorities down upon him.

And the unfortunate additional effect is that my son is NO LONGER has any interest in manifesting "grace" toward the neighbor - probably won't be able to for some time until the "sting" goes out of the situation. And to make matters worse, the neighbor Is a church-going, and outspoken "evangelical Christian". This makes talking to my son about the Lord that much more difficult, of course.

Grace, in the final analysis is the "Force" that prevents ME from doing unto others - what my human nature DEMANDS that I do to them - as a result of what they've done to ME (and what they richly deserve).

Simple as that.

Matthew 18:23-35 (The servant forgiven of a 1000 talent debt, refusing to forgive a debt of 100 pence) is an examination of a practical outworking of relational "Grace", and the utter LACK thereof.

[Doug Kitchen]

We have begun to see our faith community embrace a significant culture change, one that many of us here are familiar with. We are moving from a time line of :

BEHAVE - BELIEVE - BELONG to BELONG - BELIEVE - BEHAVE.

As we live out this change, some of our operational definitions had to change. Most obviously, holiness needed to be redefined from rules to relationships. This seems to have gone well, with some considerable hiccups. Community needed to be redefined from like-acting and like-minded folks to those who are serious about remaining in relationship as we learn to be followers of Jesus. Church needed to be redefined from people who get together on Sundays (and other days as well), and who invite people to join them - yet otherwise limit their contacts with those outside the church, to people who live out their faith in the real world in relationships with as many other folks as possible.

One other concept we are considering - and it has been forced upon us as we try to live together - is what is grace in an intentional community? As we create expectations, how do we hold each other accountable for those expectations, encouraging growth and acknowledging the challenges of the journey.

What do you think?

Mike,

We were studying John 20:19-31 today. My sunday school class usually stuck somewhere - today it was this portion:

20:21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
20:24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.

I was struck by the responsibility we have in v.23. Yet Jesus "sent us" as He had been sent. (and what was He sent for - forgiveness not condemnation). I think that like Robert suggests that forgiveness is a key part of the grace we should be sharing with each other. The disciples at this time had a bunch of people who had failed the group in multiple different ways. Some (like Thomas) were missing.

One of the class members pointed out one of the AA-12-step points - which makes forgiveness the key to preventing anger (I'm forgetting his exact words) and anger is a reentry point to addictive behavior. His example was some of the petty things we hold against each other. I think the disciples stuck together in spite of their faults whereas we tend to divide over fairly minor differences (or manage to fight to the death of our churches).

I have noticed in our intentional community that we have had incidents were the forgiveness had to be "enforced". In the last few years of my journey, I have been noticing that forgiveness is a critical expectation in the local church.

Doug

[Paul DeBaufer]

I would think that as you live out holiness in relational terms (if you are using the definition from Relational Holiness) then I think you are living out grace because you are living love within your community. I wonder if codifying grace by giving it a definition is the wisest track to take. I look at the OT and how they tried to codify love. Maybe demonstrating it by living it is the best way to define it.

[Billy Cox]

This is really sad but... great questions and I'll be watching the thread. (Sorry for the cop out but I've taken several bites at this sort of thing without much satisfaction) I think actually implementing expectations and accountability is extremely difficult in a society that can fairly be described as radically individualistic.

So the church continues to preach against individualism? What has that accomplished? Why not craft the church's message toward a redeemed individualism rather than acting as though some stage of the ordo salutis somehow transforms us into a 1st century Jewish communal mindset?

Is it possible or even desirable to develop a congregation's faith in a post-religious, post-behaviorist context? I think it is.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

One other concept we are considering - and it has been forced upon us as we try to live together - is what is grace in an intentional community? As we create expectations, how do we hold each other accountable for those expectations, encouraging growth and acknowledging the challenges of the journey.

This is definitely a difficult question and one that becomes more difficult the more people are in relationship, I think.

In a few weeks, I'll be teaching a Sunday School class on grace in the writings of the Desert Fathers. Time and time again, as I read them, I am struck by the very strict expectations they have for themselves compared to how freely they pardon those who do wrong. One beautiful example is when Abba Moses was called upon to attend a meeting to discuss penance towards a brother who had committed some kind of wrong. At first he refused to attend, but when asked again, he showed up carrying a leaking basket of sand. When asked why he was carrying it, he said, "My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another." As I read their writings, it seems to me that the more we try to live lives of purity, the more we are faced with our own weaknesses and the more grace we have for those around us. In my personal experience, too, it is the people for whom I have the greatest respect who are the most willing to forgive my weaknesses and yet they are also the ones who most inspire me to live better.

You asked what I think...

[Roland Hearn]

Here are a few that I have used over the last decade:
grace is love in action
grace is love's activity
Whatever love does that is grace.
Love is grace defined, grace is love envisaged.

[John Kennedy]

My Dad used to talk about one of the signs of Christian maturity was the willingness to be 'hard on ourselves and easy on others'.

[Hans Deventer]

Mike, in the past I've been working at writing letters to the church on several ethical subjects. What we're generally trying to do is to preach like Jesus (few if any were as radical as He) and offer grace like Jesus (and He seemed to have more room than many do). We also try to avoid culturally defined rules with little Biblical warrant, even if that makes the story to tell more complicated.

[Eric Vail]

One other concept we are considering - and it has been forced upon us as we try to live together - is what is grace in an intentional community? As we create expectations, how do we hold each other accountable for those expectations, encouraging growth and acknowledging the challenges of the journey.

What do you think?

As I read the thread title, I thought I was going to be reading a discussion about what is "grace." I spent five years in at a Catholic university where folks were wrestling with questions concerning "created" or "uncreated" grace. In reading your question, I was struck by how far reaching our uses of the term "grace" are. Coming out of a context where the locus of the term's use was so theological, my knee-jerk feeling was discomfort at placing the term in discussions of our interactions (in the same way I try to reserve "incarnation" for the Son taking on flesh).

I am not familiar with any place in the NT where grace is listed as a fruit of the Spirit. Paul often included a statement about "grace" (gifts) to you all, but there are cultural precidents for that, as well as reasons from his corpus to tie that benediction to God as the giver.

Does anyone else see good reason to reserve "grace" to the arena of God's unique work relative to creation and find another term to use in our relating to one another? Thus, we would say 'it is by grace (out of grace) that we find ourselves loving, peaceful, patient, kind, etc. toward those we would otherwise drift further into estrangement.' Or, 'it is by grace (the working of the Spirit) we are borne away from self-engrosement to the o/Other' (taking liberties with a phrase of Lyle Dabney).

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

Does anyone else see good reason to reserve "grace" to the arena of God's unique work relative to creation and find another term to use in our relating to one another? Thus, we would say 'it is by grace (out of grace) that we find ourselves loving, peaceful, patient, kind, etc. toward those we would otherwise drift further into estrangement.' Or, 'it is by grace (the working of the Spirit) we are borne away from self-engrosement to the o/Other' (taking liberties with a phrase of Lyle Dabney).

I think this is a really good point. I still think, though, that Mike's original question is important. To take Eric's suggestion into consideration, I might re-phrase it as, "What is the nature of this community that is governed by grace?" I am especially thinking of N.T. Wright's commentary on Romans 6. He says that the NRSV wording, "Shall we continue in sin?" does not capture the emphasis on sin and grace as places. He suggests that the Greek indicates that the question is similar to saying, "Shall we continue in France or shall we move on to a new place?"

Mike's question then becomes a question as to the lay of the land or the rules of the new kingdom. In a kingdom governed by grace, how do we interact with one another? What is the language here? How do we speak to one another?

In Brad Kallenberg's book Live to Tell, he lists a few changes that he believes take place in conversion. He says there is a paradigm shift, acquisition of new language, and identity in a new community.

In this land of grace, the world is seen differently. Grace reigns rather than sin.

In the land of grace, there are new words. Love, acceptance, forgiveness replace hatred, condemnation, and bitterness.

And in the land of grace, my fellow countrypeople are not necessarily my blood family or the people I have known the longest, but people who have also moved out of the land of sin.

Since this is the post traditional theology forum, I think Kallenberg's understanding is appropriate because it applies most to post-Christian people who have no understanding of the Christian perspective, do not know the language of the church, and may not even know a single Christian. Conversion is more than just giving in to a message they have heard their whole life. It is a totally new message.

However, I think it may also be true for many who have grown up in the church but understand Christian as equivalent to Republican or fundamentalist.

[Mike Schutz]

Marissa, thanks.
This is also a good word for Pentecost. What does life in the Spirit look like, once we decide it does not mean more rules?