Yesterday, in my post “What does not come naturally“, I quoted Dave Black as saying, “Some of this work is beyond what comes naturally to me. There is much growth and grace in that,” and “But if I am a serious Christian, I cannot do only what comes easily to me”.
Arthur, at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia“, wrote about something similar in his post called “Speaking of mutuality“. But, in the case of Arthur’s post, he was talking about something near and dear to my own hear: mutuality. Arthur shares his experiences of meeting with a church which practices mutuality. He says:
Where we are gathering for fellowship has taken some getting used to. It has been jarring to have someone different bring the primary message each week. It is hard to get comfortable with the idea of lots of different men contributing to the teaching instead of the typical model of one man teaching and everyone else listening…
It is a far cry from the single individual giving the message Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday PM that we are used to. That is familiar and comfortable. I donâ€™t think it is Biblical but it is what we have always known and it is the cultural norm in the civic religion of America.
So, why does Arthur put up with this “uncomfortable” feeling when he meets with the church? He says,
I think it is healthy to have so many different people getting involved. The tendency of people is to get lazy. Why study for myself when the pastor will do it for me?
He continues to say that he thinks (from reading the New Testament examples) that this is how the early church met together. So, Arthur is willing to meet in a way that is “uncomfortable” to him because he recognizes the benefit. And, as Dave said, “There is much growth and grace in that”.