Ponder Anew 1!

David R. Larson            Loma Linda, California 

Comments by David R. Larson

 Many probably agree with Richard Rice, a theologian at Loma Linda University, that being a Christian is a matter of believing, behaving and belonging. His emphasis upon the overriding importance of belonging is both more provocative and more controversial, however. Although Rice wrote this excellent book primarily for Seventh-day Adventist Christians like him and me, the question it sparks should be of interest to others as well:  Is belonging as important in the Christian life as Rice says it is?

In his Introduction, Rice declares that "community is the most important element of Christian existence. Believing, behaving and belonging are all essential to the Christian life, but belonging is more important, more fundamental than the others." At the end of his first chapter he asserts that "Christianity is not just a matter of believing and behaving, it is a matter of belonging, too, and belonging is the most important element of all." Rice develops and defends this claim throughout the rest of his book.

Is what he writes actually so?

Rice rightly looks upon many renditions of Christian individualism as conceptually flawed and experientially impossible. To be a Christian is to participate in the life of the Christian community in one or more of its many expressions, he contends. In this sense, Christianity is more like Judaism and Islam than it is like Hinduism or Buddhism, both of which often leave more room for the solitary saint or sage. Even if only in the recollections and anticipations of others, each true Christian is first of all a member of the body of Christ and, when well enough to do so, attempts to think and act accordingly. Unlike frequent portraits of the hero of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim Progress, the Christian is not on an individual quest but a communal one.

This way of depicting things provides several opportunities for further discussion. One of these is that Rice's portrait of Christian existence may be more appropriate for what sociologists of religion call "churches" than it is for what they call "sects." An important difference between the two is that one does not usually choose to become a member of a "church" as a thoughtful adult. One’s parents and nation make this decision on one’s behalf at the time of one’s birth or very shortly thereafter. "Sects" are usually voluntary associations whereas "churches" are usually non-voluntary ones, at least when we use these words as the sociologists often do.

Belonging certainly is the most important consideration in "churches" because in most such cases one belongs before one truly believes or behaves, just as one usually continues to belong even if one eventually chooses neither to believe nor to behave in harmony with the church’s teachings. Because one chooses to belong to a "sect," partly as a matter of deciding what to believe and how to behave, some may argue that, in the every day affairs of "sectarian" Christianity, believing, behaving and belonging are more equal in their importance and in their interactions than Rice contends.

A second opportunity for further discussion concerns whether a sense of belonging is most effectively fostered directly or indirectly. We have all probably noticed that often we feel more keenly that we belong when we cooperate with others in some challenging and worthy project than when we when we look into each other’s eyes and whisper, "let’s belong."

 Noting a parallel phenomenon, moral philosophers often speak of a "hedonistic paradox." This is the tendency for people to experience more happiness when it is an outcome of other things they pursue more directly and intensely than they do when they make happiness the primary goal of their lives. Some of the most unhappy people are those who make it their overriding priority to be nothing but happy. As life’s most important and most direct goal, happiness is often overrated.

In a similar fashion, perhaps we can speak of a "communal paradox" according to which the sense that one belongs is more likely to be experienced if one’s primary aim in life is not to belong but to collaborate with others in strenuous attempts to improve life. Marathon runners, particularly those who complete the course together, often develop deep and lasting bonds. It is doubtful, however, that they would connect as thoroughly if they made belonging the primary aim of their events.

A third opportunity for further discussion concerns the way we should understand relationships, on the one hand, and identity, on the other. As many have demonstrated, it is possible to think of the human self as a singular and static thinking substance that enters into relationships that are accidental rather than essential. In this view of things, the self can be wholly what it is entirely apart from any or all its relationships. If so, I am what I am, you are what you are, and on this basis we may or may not enter into relationships with each other, with no consequences either way for our respective identities. This is precisely the doctrine that Rice’s book displaces.

The contrary view, the one Rice champions in this valuable book, is that, in the formation of the self, relationships are essential, not accidental, constitutive, not discretionary. Apart from one’s current relationships, one would be a different person. Apart from all relationships, human and otherwise, one would not be at all. In this respect, belonging is precisely what Rice says it is: the most important and most fundamental factor. "Belonging" is "being" and "not belonging" is "not being."

The same is true with respect to the Christian life. One literally cannot "be" a Christian, one cannot even "believe" or "behave" as Christians should, unless first, last and in between one "belongs" to some part of the Christian community. It should be noted, though, that in this book Rice’s argument is thoroughly theological from the outset. He reasons from the necessity of being connected to the church in Christian existence to the importance of relationships in all of life, not the other way around.

When we use the word "belonging" in this way, we initially strip away its more sentimental connotations and use it in a more restricted sense as relating to something, in this case the Christian community, whether by choice, chance or both. Belonging in the sense of feeling accepted or welcomed is pleasant but contingent, whereas belonging in the sense of being a member of the body of Christ is what counts most of all, even if this is not always pleasant.

Is belonging really more important and fundamental than believing and behaving, as Rice contends? Perhaps not, if we limit our discussions to how Christian individuals and groups too often think about and arrange their lives. But if we delve deeper, if we dive into what the New Testament says about being a Christian, and if we plunge into considerations of the connections between relationships and identity in the whole of life, Christian and otherwise, the answer is a decided "yes!"