-
Website
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-exactly-is-church.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I come from a congregationally led church btw, where we do have a pastor (leader) but the church can vote the guy out if they don't like him, basically. So, MY whole point in this is just to say that we can't just say "I'm sick of church (for whatever reason), I'm just going to do it my way from now on." I don't believe the majority of people here are actually suggesting this, but I was addressing the idea of meeting at home, etc. and not placing yourself in the midst of the organized structure of what God had set up for us in the Word. The Church is the Body of Christ, but it is also a meeting together with local believers under an umbrella of authority and accountability. Peter and Paul wrote letters to address problems within churches (groups of believers) in different cities--not to just all the believers out there in the Body of Christ. The pastor is not the head, of course, he is just a leader who pastors the flock
Dale, are you saying that you're not sure if the church should be "led" by a pastor? (shepherded) at all? Or do you mean it should have more than one? If you could clarify that...
I'm not suggesting that we have to remain totally old school--there are always ways to improve a system already in place. I just wanted to address 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'. We need to keep church systems as laid out in Scripture, in place
"Pastor" is only mentioned once in translation in the Scripture and even then it is plural. It is often used literally for people who watch sheep and metaphorically for the house of Israel who have no "sheperd." Jesus also refers to Himself as the great shepherd.
Overseers and elders are NOT the same thing. Different words are used. An overseer may have the gift of shepherding, but they are not the same thing. In addition, I see no indication that the leader of a "church" is singular. They might be leaders of a community, absent an institutional structure and building.
I'm not saying it is necessarily bad to have one leader. I'm just pointing out that this seems to be in addition to Scripture and, if such, something we should consider in light of the big discouragements about "church" in general.
The big gestalt switch for most people is that we think of "church" as an institutional structure first. We refer to it as such and our Christian culture assumes that the Body must meet in an institutional structure, complete with paid staff, disproportion of leaders to congregation, and chalk full of programs... these are deep assumptions that we overlay Scripture onto rather than overlaying our institutions over Scripture and judging accordingly.
I'm not disputing the fact that mankind has 'programmed' the local church of the 21st centrury so much that it doesn't resemble what the N.T. describes the local church as in the pastoral epistles, and Acts. But that doesn't give us the right to re-interpret the Scripture as to what the local church is, which is a localized, called-out body of believers, assembled together under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, with the pastor as the leader, the deacon in the 'servan'ts' office with a congregational govt. (pastor-leader, congregation-governing)
Yet, too many conservative, Biblical scholars disagree these days that a "church" is the assembly as institutionalized under a "pastor." I don't think this has changed because of modern times. I think it was actually an earlier era that re-framed how we are supposed to think about church and made the standard a congregation under one pastor.
By the way, though "ekklesia" literally means "called-out ones," it has no spiritual significance. It is a generic word. In the ancient world, pagans also met as ekklesias because it simply met assemblies or people. And for the Jewish mind, it means something even more... it referred to all the Chosen People and those grafted into her....
The American church is not helping themselves by trying to corner us into belonging to a camp: charismatic, Reformed, emerging, Fundamentalism, whatever. Nor is the Christian publishing industry helping with all its endless books and slick marketing campaigns. Our leaders approach us like salesmen: "What do we have to throw in to make this a deal?"
That still works for a lot of people. But an increasing number of people are tired of being hit up by marketers and propagandists. We're tired of being sold on something that looks good in the store only to take it home and find out it's nothing but disposable crap. We want someone to give it to us straight, stop the pretenses, and show us that you believe it.
Popular-culture people may not grow weary of this, but many people who earnestly want to grow more human spew it.
You are correct to say worship can include theological discussions, but I feel it needs to be more than just that. This isn't necessarily supported by scripture, I'm just talking my perspective on church and worship.
No where in mandi's writings is praise (I agree, it does not need to be music) or worship mentioned, and I fear that there is a very thin, and dangerous line between just being spiritual & being a Christian; and it's very easy to cross and not so easy to get back on track, I've seen it happen to family and friends.
The reason I ask these questions are because the main subject of your blog is about the church as a congregational setting, not a personal faith journey, or personal spirituality.
Maybe the message is getting mixed up in my mind....
I guess what I'm saying is that the institution may be giving us assumptions and requirements that are overshadowing the Body...
You've got it right there. In fact Jesus warned us not to be so hung up on worshipping and praying in public, because that's what the pharisees were doing. It IS about a personal relationship first, then that relationship ripples out to your family, friends and community. And that could, and should be done 24/7
I personally find going into my room to praise and worship God and rejuvenate the bonds I have with Him works very well for me. And most evenings I do this with my family and sometimes my friends too. I don't need to go to an institution to do this.
I would challenge the allusion to Matthew 18 and the "2 or more are gathered in his name." That passage is a reference to disciplining someone in the community. It isn't a formula for the amount of attendance required for church, if an attendance is required at all.
It is time that we wake up to the blessing and call that God has given us - to live in service for the world - not to protect our little kingdoms. It is time to be a transforming presence in the world through the self-giving love shown to us by Jesus on the Cross. It is time to "be" church not just go to it.
(that's my version of "preach it!" or "alleluia!"
I think that maybe the American church has somewhat lost sight of this element of meeting together--building relationships. It probably used to be there more so, before there was so much technology and entertainment at our fingertips, but there is too much nowadays to take the focus off relationship-building. Oh sure, we still love to be together and talk even these days, but are we really focusing on the meaning of what God commands for the meeting together, or 'church' --that we "forsake not the assembling of ourselves together...exhorting one another..." Could be that maybe we need to focus on the exhortation of people more here in this nation as these dear Africans have shewn us, whom we observe on a daily basis in Tanzania.
When I think about church...my 'problem' with it is that it's not 'in depth', it seems to be a time to come together, sit for an hour, listen to a sermon that is sometimes applicable and other times not. There doesn't seem to be a point because there's no connection with people.
I'd rather meet as a group of Christians who can discuss Scripture yet really get to know one another so that sharing of lives can occur.
Church seems to be becoming more about a production and a program than a group of people meeting together to worship God, encourage one another, be discipled, disciple others and really live life with each other and let the Holy Spirit do His thing through us and around us.
It's like we've taken out the foundation (Christ) at church and have decided that we need to entertain the people that come with loud, fast music, a preacher who steps back from the heart of the Gospel to preach something 'feel good' and 'nice', with movie clips, etc. then to actually be what Christ was about, to be what the church was about in Acts.
Just a couple thoughts this morning at 7:25 a.m. :-)
I hear you on the production that has become the service. Do you think most pastors who have people in the congregation that are frustrated with "church" are just feel good pastors? Or are you speaking here from your own experience?
Love the thoughts, Ashley! Keep that sharp mind churning!
I honestly don't think that a large group sunday morning service is even needed. When I've talked to the pastor...he places all his emphasis on Sunday morning...he wants that to be "the best it can be"..but with that it is about production...not connection...it seems churches no longer have a vision that they have a strategic plan to strive towards it. They are just doing 'church' the way it's been done for years, except trying to make it more 'fun' to go to attract more from the new generation.
I think if more people got involved church would be completely different. Paid staff don't tend to think outside the 'box' anymore. They just do it the way it's been done...and have no heart to it...
At the church I've been attending...there never really seems to be a challenge. Even for evangelism...the pastor made a c.d. of sharing the Gospel and asks the congregation to make copies and share it with their friends. With that, the people don't even need to know the Gospel anymore...they simply share the c.d with them of what the pastor said.
Where is the equipping of people to share their faith? To know what the Gospel is? To let it be the focus of their lives if they are not even needed to present the Gospel anymore, but can just give a c.d. to the people.
It bugs me...the church is lazy...not challenging people in their faith in actions or intellect. It's a come and 'get' mindset instead of a come and give mindset. How do we change that?
I know in my particular age group...we're overlooked. We have different ideas and new ideas on how to know Jesus and make him known..but it scares people because we come at it from a different direction. For those that really love Jesus in this age group...know that we need to do things different to meet our peers and those that we once thought like...I can't just go to a peer and easily say, "here's the facts..it's truth."...I have to come from a relational aspect, begin conversations with the people, and learn where they are, to then give them reasons to want to follow Christ, which eventually gets to the facts of Christianity. The church doesn't do that in general...they tell you what you need to believe then just expect it you to believe it. My generation is not that way...we want proof, evidence, and action oriented Truth being presented. We want to be able to express our ideas/beliefs and then be challenged by your ideas/beliefs in a non-threatning setting. The church in general can't do that...they'll 'entertain' for an hour....but not necessarily teach anything...and so we'll walk away with no connection, no relationship, no common ground...and no desire to keep coming back.
I'm reminded of Scott Peck's line when he said that if the older generation does not choose to learn from its children, it is choosing the path to senility.
My 19yo & 22yo sons agree with you. However, see my post below, we as a family (ages 16-42)feel the church does what it does because it has become a business and needs "bums on seats" in order to generate the income it budgets for. This results in "feel-good" messages designed to keep people happy and coming back. There isn't anything happening in church today that feeds us spiritually. There is no challenge, no thought involved. It's sit-back-and-let-us-entertain-you-until-your-wallet-opens.
What we want is someone who challenges us to walk the talk, someone who isn't afraid of offending us if that's what it takes to wake us up. We have found this in a small group doing study in someone's home. We know each other, we support each other and we challenge each other in a loving way.
We don't have a leader, but we have older, wiser Christians (who have proven themselves in the way elders should) who help us keep on track and who help guide the group so it doesn't end up in everyone talking at the same time or someone who is opinionated running the show to the detriment of more timid or quiet members. We come from different denominations and backgrounds, but we are all searching for truth and wisdom and want to worship God in truth. This makes for some lively discussion sometimes, but we accept the Judaic principles that a debate, as long as it is done resepectfully, is a great tool for learning. As iron sharpens iron, so we sharpen each other. Some speak Greek and have Greek Bibles from whcih they share historical and cultural perspective, we have Messianic Jew who shares his Jewish perspective with us and others are historians, have studied apologetics, are scientists and such. We each value the backgrounds and knowlegde the others bring and when we disagree we disagree respectfully. Who knows? Maybe you are right, but I am not yet spiritually mature enough to see it the way you do? If I ask God to show me, in time He will.
There has to be a humbleness, a willingness to learn and a respect and love for the individuals and the place where they are in their journey with God. So we all teach and we all learn and we share in the blessings that being a whole, functioning body brings.
Jot me a note to kidmugg@gmail.com. I'd like to correspond some more.
I sense some inherent dangers here, that as we got too philisophical in our belief, we tend to ignore the principles of Christianity.
I'm not saying all this to make a point, I'm more to the point of trying to understand it all.
I think the principles of Christianity have been skewed a long time since it decided to replace the Jews and the Jewish mind as the revelatory people of God (Rom 3:2). Both the Catholic Church and the Reformed church have been guilty of this.
We can get into the discussion on another thread, but the word "church" doesn't even refer in Scripture to a new institution at the time of Acts, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have used the word in Matt 16 and 18. The word "church" in the Scripture refers to something older than the New Testament. And that, I believe, is the movement God is making in the world, in part, by allowing the crisis of faith and "church" (as we know it) to unravel.
These thoughts are new to most people, a gestalt switch, but an important one, on my view, and one that I've been unpacking the last few years, trying to make sense of what we are really doing as the people of God.
Please feel free to correct me on any miss-interpretations I make.
Yes, it can be hard to break the mold, but at least you are part of the discussion and very welcome.
What we are trying to follow is the guidelines Paul gave for assembly (or "church") in 1 Cor and other scriptures. In 1 Cor 14 it is clear that "church" does not refer to 50 souls sitting down and listening to one soul speak. I quote "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. " Please note that EVERYONE has something to bring. There are clear guidelines for what an elder should be like, how they should behave and what their duties are, as well as the respect due to them. Titus 1, Hebrews 11 and James 5 give us some insight.
We also have the words of Jesus who told us in Matthew 23:8 that we are all brothers, and that He alone is our teacher "Rabbi". What happens when we live this out in our church gatherings is pretty amazing. I have been to some other home churches which function even better than ours, but we are working towards it. What happens is that each person knows that they need to seek God's Word throughout the week so that they can come and share and build-up the others when we get together. This ensures that each person is daily and continually in prayer and communion with God and is searching, whenever possible, the Word of God for a word to share. Because we are all praying together for our Teacher to teach us, we get together and start sharing and pretty soon it becomes clear to anyone with half a brain that there is a common topic going around. And that each person has an experience, a Scripture, a song, to contribute to this lesson. Despite having seen this happen time after time I still sit in amazement when it occurs because no-one decides on a topic before hand. We just go away and ask God what He wants to say, and when we get together we speak about the same thing. It's pretty awesome. If we get together and only one person has something to share then so be it, but generally several people want to share and we all learn.
As for "debate", well sometimes that happens also, especially with contentious issues. But the study of Scripture ("midrash" in Hebrew) is usually a respectful debate with the intent that an issue is looked at from as many points of view as possible, and that everyone's opinion is respected and considered. When you debate Scripture using Scripture you force those participating in the debate to study Scripture more intently, to look and search and remember where passages are which they have used to come to their point of view. The idea of midrash is, however, not to force my point of view on you, but to open my mindset up to other ideas, other understandings and opinions about a specific word or passage. It always helps me clarify what I believe and more often than not I end up learning and humbling myself and realising I didn't see the whole picture. No matter how many times you read the Bible you can always learn more about it and understand it deeper.
The trick is to cultivate a Jesiah mindset about debate. For us debate is the beating of an opponent with words until he submits, for the Jews debate is a sharpening of knowledge, something they do with great respect for one another as family. You don't debate to win, but to learn.
You must remember that Jesus was a Jew and that Paul and James and Peter were Jews and that their mindset and the background from which they were operating was that of Jews. The church has long imagined it could divorce itself from it's Judaic roots without suffering loss, but the Scriptures very clearly advise us not to become arrogant and forget where we came from. Romans 11 makes it clear that the "root" of Christianity is Judaism and that we mustn't boast and be arrogant. Read verses 18- 21 very carefully.
Once you understand and accept the Judaic roots of your faith you will begin to understand that "church" is not that thing we do in a building, but that "church" is you and me, working together, living together, building each other up, then going out into the world, with this strong foundation and support, and sharing and showing others what God has done for us. THAT is church.
My understanding as well is that "church" in the New Testament is a borrowed concept from the Old Testament for the "House of Israel." So when we think of "church" we MUST think of people as connected to Jewish people (Rom 9-11). We may create an institution and congregations and non-profits and hospitals and unversities, etc, but those aren't the church. They are, on my view, "community centers." What happens is that we require the people grafted into the House of Israel to consider "church" as the building on the corner, complete with staff. We relegate the "offices" of the church to board members and paid "ministers" and "full time Christian work." And we frown on people who do not attend these community centers as fragmented and backsliding and out of fellowship. In reality, they may be re-learning through the Spirit the older Jewish view (and the whole New Testament is Jewish) that the "church" is the people of God who are connected to the "Chosen" people, the Jews, and all of the Jewish promises.
I don't think people are ready for this identity shift. But it's coming. It's only a matter of time. I just hate to see all the disenfranchised Christians discouraged and wandering when in reality they've taken no steps away from God and his people, only away from the "community center" that's been the cultural norm for many centuries...
Also, if someone asked you to define "church," what would you say. Your input is very helpful and would love to hear more. I too have been abused by "church" and know what it's like to live under that hypocrisy done in the name of God...
Just wanted to add that clarity.
comes rfom ashes is good but to go through it in practical life is not easy.
But the God who raised jesus is sufficient to extend his grace to us. He can
do anything. Look into the life of Paul, the Holy spirit asked him to go to
macedonia Acts 16:9. what happened after that, Lydias heart was opened and
she beleived in Jesus and later a slave girl was cast out of demons
*WHY*because she told something good if you
*think the human way*.Acts 16:17 "These men are servants of the most high
God" A revelation which the present church is lacking. But there was big
difference. It was the devil speaking through her. In the church many at a
times we face the same situation we need to have the dicernment of the Holy
spirit and need break throughs.Some people are commissioned by God to
persecute and trouble us. paul himself tells that he is suffering from his
own spiritual brothers. So what should we expect. We read in other passage
that God has appointed the a satanic angel to poke Paul so that he will not
pride in his spiritual gifts. Why sould God do this because he loves you.
God cares about you. Bit difficult to think positively. Jesus was given name
above all names because he was ready to give himself up.In Mark 10 we can
see one man telling Good teacher. jesus gives glory to God and tells only
God is good. He never wated to take any honour. Give all glory to God in all
situations God will help us.
Acts 16 22. paul was stripped and beaten WHY, because he told the truth that
the slave girls spirit was devilish. In church when we try to tell some real
truths no one will support or understand. So we will be left alone to
suffer. But don't worry. Because paul suffered and was put in the jail.Acts
16:25-34 The prison was shaken and the jailer and his family beleived in
Jesus. Suffering not in vain. When your own brother or pastor will persecute
you think you have a promotion. You will never cry and call upon God unless
we have a pain in our heart.
Always think that there is something good coming out from your bitterness.
then only we can lead a successful Christian life.
God Bless
God is good. He will never let us down. In times of trouble he will guide
us.
Like to know more about you.
God bless
Shaji
When we suffer evil at the hands of others we have a good God to go to who did not cause the evil. And when we see evil, God tells us we can call it evil. When anyone is abused by another, whether it be by a pastor or anyone else, it is evil. Period. I'm unsure it would be a promotion. It's just evil happening to you and you get to be identified with Jesus who had evil happen to him. We call the people evil. We don't call God evil for God did not cause the evil.
It would serve us well that when we find someone suffering that we do not say God is teaching us a lesson nor that God is bragging on us nor that we are getting a promotion. Theologically speaking those are quite far from the God of the Scripture, though it has been preached and taught for a long time.
We want to love the hurting and help them healing with a God who is good and with us all the way.
Oh, and we can call upon God even when we do not have pain in our hearts. While pain does sometimes drive us to him; sometimes pleasure does too. Pain is not necessary to be holy. Again, often preached, but it's not a Scriptural principle. ;)
I believe we need to recast church as small gatherings of God's people in simple, everyday contexts. We need to get rid of the idea of the 'church service' and allow us to be the church.
In recasting "church" as small gatherings, would that be a regular time of gathering with the same people? Would Sunday play into any significance?
I think you're onto something important that we've conflated "church" with "church service." Thanks for the post.
I do believe that it is a result of the mega-church movement. When people confuse church growth with "God must be moving there" then we get this market driven approach. Give people what they want and not exactly the truth of the Word. As christians we need, of course intimacy with God, but also with fellow believers for a multitude of reasons- accountability, support, burden sharing etc.(iron sharpening iron).
Some mega-churches still preach the Word. But do they lose the intimacy and close connection with a small group of believers?
It is key to let God be God (always) and so it is God's actions (of grace, forgiveness, word, sacrament, and most especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ) that defines the church. The confusion, hurt, mistrust, and disillusionment comes when God's action is forgotten and instead a people's behavior defines God. Or, in other words, it is God's action that defines church, not the church that defines God.
I'd also like to point out that it is important to be aware of the two sides of church. There is church as an institution - numbers, members, bills, money. And there is church as a body of believers called, gathered, and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Some would lean far on either of those two sides when really, as a people in this 21st century, it is some combination of both. The problems come when one of those two different sides of the same coin are forgotten...either the Gospel is forgotten and it becomes about our actions (acquiring more souls, bodies, money), or people are disillusioned when the idealism of a "real church" is broken by humans' very real propensity for sin.
Just some thoughts... thanks for the conversation!
I am curious if you know, outside a practical level, where church as an organization is considered in Scripture. I know that when the KJV was written, it was written with to reinforce the Church of England as an institution, and so we get those connotations in all of our subsequent English translations (well, the influential ones). Because we've lived with the church as institution for so long and since the Reformation didn't reform the concept of institution from the RCC, I wonder if we smuggle in institutional assumptions and overplay them when maybe, just maybe, God is moving his people into something else.... Would love your reply.
It seems that whenever people are gathered there are always those who need to set up the institutional side of it. Yes I think God is always creating and re-creating, forming and reforming. I do not think that means we dismiss the variety of ways that people form and reform together. For some that requires more structure than others.
I think God works through it all; though I don't think God necessarily calls it all to happen...too much life-taking happens from "Christian" people in a "church" for me to ever say God makes it all happen "for a purpose." (I hope that makes sense. I'd be happy to go into more detail if you like.)
So, God is working through it all - the chaos and the structure, the "old ways" and the "new ways".
While I'm not a fan of Constantinian Christianity that some people seem to be clinging to in this post-modern age, I do think it is easy for us who are more apt to be open to the changes to come down hard on those old, institution-protecting religious faiths. There is something to be offered in the hard work those institutionalized faith leaders went through. However, it is important to always hold it with a light hand, always seeking Christ through it all... So yeah, since we've all grown up experiencing or at least knowing of church as an institution, those assumptions you touched on (about the Bible) will often be there mixed up in the conversation. Hopefully in as conscious a way as possible, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. Like I said, I don't think it's something to dismiss or even be ashamed of, but to be aware of and unpack together....hey...is that church?
Scripturally, the church as an organization is and is not discussed as we know church today. I think scripturally, we are pointed to a life together as disciples of Christ, living freely in God's grace together...we are called to preach this gospel together through our life and word...we are pointed to the sacraments of communion and baptism...we are reminded of our history with the Hebrew people, the Apostles, Paul, and the Gentiles...we are meant to live together in this new life of peace, hope and grace. Scripturally, I think we are called to be church together by God's action and by how we ARE transformed by God's actions. And that transformation is continual, which is why the conversation about "what is church" will never end.
I don't know if it's as necessary for me to point out the ways that scripture does not discuss church. Since, I believe, the church is about what God does, it's obvious when church isn't church, right? I think there are even examples in the Bible that describe what is NOT church.
I also don't know if the answers will be found as much in scripture as in historical context. How did Jews worship? How did Gentiles and Pagans worship? While they may not have had a word like "church" to describe it, their way of being/gathering together informed the way the early church understood how to be together.
I could probably go on forever. I'll just stop now.
I do know/believe that Jesus did not come to invent a new religion. I think sometimes assumptions about that (Jesus and religion, or just religion and church) get mixed in with the conversation of church and how to be church too...
Dale, Hope some of that responded to your thoughts.
God does use lots of things. And I think that when we institutionalize, some things get done that would not otherwise have gotten done. In addition, some things are lost. And right now I think people are groaning for the lost things. We've built institutions and have forgotten what they are for. We think that as long as we give the message and promote love, that the institution will continue to work. But perhaps, to borrow a phrase used for a different context, "The message is the medium." What happens with the Pharisees hide God with their institution, while some scholars believe most of Jesus phrases could be found in the Pharisaical sect and he revealed God so much the more. Something is in the pudding.
While I think people will always try to institutionalize, I don't always think it is necessary. After all, if the spirit is the unifier (not the organization) and if Jesus is the Head (not the pastor) what happens if we take the risk and let God do his work more freely without asking him to work within our institutional parameters? Just thoughts.
I'm totally with you that I do not think Jesus came to bring a new religion. Most of culture (including many in the "church") don't realize this...
I'm going to take the thoughts from all these comments and make another post to press further in. I don't like strawmen on either side of the argument and I'm hoping this little blog can offer some light for those interested.
The greater church is resistant to something... but that's a quality of fallen human through history. The status quo easily gives the illusion of "safety." I told a conservative "church" group recently that I wasn't as concerned about being conservative as I was about being truthful. Some lightbulbs went on among those who thought "conservative" meant "truthful." What exactly are we conserving anyway? Is it bringing life and flourishing? Are we seeing follows of Jesus walking tall and free? Seeking truth always requires self-critique, which isn't always fun or 'positive,' but is usually the only sure and humble way forward. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
I'm encouraged by your post.
Good reply. However, please, please show me where in scripture does the bills and money and members and numbers come in? The problem is that we have taken something that is about people and made it about a place. When you start worrying about numbers and money you stop worrying about the truth and the people. They become numbers and part of your budget.
Church meetings should be small enough to fit into a home - that way everyone knows each other and is aware of each others' needs and problems. That way there are no massive overheads and bills and we don't need to start seeing people as numbers. I have been in church leadership and know how we counted heads each Sunday, and how we measured the spiritual health of the church against those numbers and the tithes. This seems to me to be missing the point. Do we know how many of those people are actually hearing the message? How many are there because they like the entertainment we provide, or our coffee? Did anyone really go out today and LIVE what they learned? How can we tell? We don't know them personally, we don't even know who most of them are.
It's only on rare occations in Scripture that huge groups got together for teaching. When a special person came to speak to them about something specific e.g Paul or to share something special e.g baptism or marriages. Otherwise there were small groups that got together in homes, regularly, and learnt and taught one another.
I'll be posting soon on why I think we need to consider what the church IS apart from the institution... focussing on the people and why that people is much deeper than even what we see in Acts...
The problem is not, I think, with where we worship, but how we define "church". Scripturally the church is the body of believers, you and me and the next person, NOT a building. We have made the building the church and forgotten about the people methinks.
And they likely gathered at the synagogue the day before, on the Sabbath, which they practiced.
Yes, we can gather anywhere we like it seems in the Scripture. I just get concerned when the gathering becomes a passive affair for most believers, sitting and listening under a strict hierarchy without active engagement....
One thing that always seems to pop up in our conversations is materialism and the 'instant gratification' that our society thrives on now-a-days. It seems that alot of people, especially the younger that have been raised in this atmosphere, are looking for a quick fix when it comes to church. They are looking for a drive thru, one stop shop when it comes to churches and spiritual renewal (hence the popularity of Mega-churches).
Society has taught them to be this way, and unfortunatly, we as Christians have done a poor job of teaching them that there is much more that God and Jesus want us to get out of our church family.
If you pay attention to world news you'll notice that protestant religions in less developed countries do not have nearly the amount of dissatisfaction with their churches, and in some places, the church actually thrives. It's because they do not live in an 'economically' driven society like we do, and it does make a difference.
I believe until we can break this cycle of thought, and prove the core values of having a church family we will always be saddled with this problem.
We HAVE allowed ourselves to be shaped by a quick-fix culture of instant gratification. I'd have to say this isn't just the younger ones who were raised in this culture, but most of the people in the "church" today. Scott Peck's 1978 book, The Road Less Traveled, speaks about the discipline of delayed gratification which really resonated with that generation too as a need to be cultivated...
I wonder if one of the reasons the church does better in developing countries is that their culture itself may be more relational than many of our suburban atmospheres. Maybe it's suburbia's influence on the meaning of community that's in flux, and so the "church" is in flux because of it.
From my experience, in the developing culture's "church," congregations are less educated. So they depend more on the leadership and have more of a leader-follower culture. In our culture, more people are educated and know more and so feel hindered when only a few can be involved when the larger gathering meets. I, for one, hear many, many pastors in my speaking travels and on the radio. I'd have to say it is quite frustrating to see in the seat, take in some bad theology, and having no platform to raise a hand, invite a discussion, get people thinking, questioning, growing as a larger body. Most churches today have content control and usher the discussions off to small groups. There are positive and negative reasons for this, though our info-driven culture of today would like to hear more voices, I'm guessing.
There's also the issue we have in developing countries with time-constraints. People in our culture have schedules to keep. So the church service is a rigid designated time without flexibility. This is one reason our country is developed... we are time-keepers and don't know when "relaxing into the flow" of time is more important than controlling time with our schedules.
Those are cultural differences, yet I still wonder if it is too easy to conflate "church" with "church service."
You caught my attention with the searching for a new pastor. The assumption I would question is the why we need to import talent into local bodies. What if the assumption was that the Spirit equipped the body locally? And what if the Spirit wanted the local body to share voices and leadership? What if part of what discourages people is hiring pastors like CEOs who don't know the community and then descend on the "church" to "run" it. Also, I witness lots of pastoral-idolatry, people enamored by their pastor as their spiritual leader rather than the Messiah. I'm not saying everyone does this, but it tends to be something I see from the older generations who "must have their pastor." Those assumptions are all worth challenge and discussing when trying to figure out what exactly is "church"?
Thoughts?
Relational: Humungous Point
We have lost fact that the bible itself is a story about our relationship to God, and that Jesus came to cement that relationship. Not only that, but the relationship was intended to be extended unto 'all nations', and we can barely bring ourselves to say hello to the person sitting next to us in the pew.
Our church has a mission to Nicaragua every year and I chuckle to myself when we do...only because we go down there with money, and materials to help them do what they cannot afford and in return they show us how to live a true, loving relationship with God. When it comes to faith, love, and hope I'm not worthy compared to these wonderful people.
Time Constraints:
Oh Lord....don't get me started! When the minister says we'll only sing the first stanza of a hymn of worship because we are just too busy and time is running out, I want to throw a book at him/her.
Again we have a sister church in downtown Cleveland, OH that is in a very repressed part of town and filled with minorities. Their services last 2 to 2 1/2 hours. Why? Well I think it's because they don't have to rush home to soccer games and manicured lawns, shopping dates and business meetings, Their joy is in worshiping God not their possessions. (I know that's pretty rough, but alot of truth in it.)
Talent in Local Bodies:
This is a interesting and sometimes complicated area for me to discuss. I think an Elder run church can be a great value if it doesn't become a olgarchy, or a patriarchy movement (ever read Quiverfull, by Katheryn Joyce?). Our church has intentionally worked to let leadership in Spiritual life to thrive, People can give sermons, organize worship, etc.. but still few except the call, and want the pastor to dictate their actions and beliefs.
As far as pastorial-idolatry we recently (10 years ago) said goodbye to a pastor of 26 years! It was a very difficult time for the church and the next pastor; as everyone placed their values on the previous minister's work instead of looking to where God wanted us to go in our future endeavours.
We have a wonderful church that is quite intergenerational, but because of this we struggle constantly with old church values and new church ideas. We have found out that those struggles increase when we focus our lives on what the church is, and decrease when we focus on God's mission (what the church does). If we keep the focus on community mission, God's call to witness in life, and outreach....that seems to satisfy all generations.
Hope this gives answers to some of your thoughts...
Not all are called to be ordained and to lead through Word and Sacrament. I do not think it would be true to the local church-bodies calling in their community to take someone who kind of has the gifts to fill this spot because we want to remain local. God is calling church-bodies to be who they are in and for their community. Not all in that church body will have gifts or even be called to lead the church...basically, don't force it.
Of course I think God can call and use anyone for the proclamation of the Gospel...it's just important not to pigeon hole it...
I do think that the Spirit is calling ALL PEOPLE to live their gifts in the world and for the world. Those gifts will lead them to share their voices and leadership in a variety of ways, not always as REV.
Pastoral-idolatry is not church. That's another area filled with assumptions by lay-people and some pastors alike.
This conversation is great for the discussion of call. It's also great for Lutherans (OR ANYONE. I just said Lutherans since this is Lutheran language coming up...) considering what it means to be Saint and Sinner or part of the Priesthood of All Believers.
Anyways, these threads clearly show that discussing Church is NOT a one-dimensional task.
SEARCH Institute study of Protestant congregations 1988-1989 focus question, "Who do 7-12 graders identify as the key faith formative influences in their lives?"
Mother 74% female 81% male
Father 50% female 61% male
Pastor 44% female 57% male
Grandparent 29% female 30% male
Youth group 30% female 30% male
Friends 29% female 22% male
Camp 28% female 20% male
(numerous other studies consistently showed the importance of families...then this one caught my eye)
Dartmouth Medical School Institute for American Values study 2003 focus question, "What is the state of American youth and what do they need in order to be healthy?"
"American youth are in a deteriorating state of mental and behavioral health."
"The adult/cultural reactions to this state is inadequate and contributing to the problem."
“what’s causing this crisis in American childhood is a lack of connectedness…close connectedness to other people, and deep connections to moral and spiritual meaning.”
“We believe that building and strengthening authoritative communities is…our best strategy…authoritative communities are groups that live out the types of connectedness that our children increasingly lack.”
Perhaps this doesn't answer the question about what church "is" so much, but I think its a good reminder to church leaders where church starts...at home; and that one of the main things the church has to be about is connectedness.
On a more practical level, we got tired of church management not knowing how to manage the organization from finances to conflict resolution. I fault seminaries for not giving pastors management training. As an MBA from a Fortune 50 company, I could not make it through a church business meeting...
Seminary isn't for management training. And that may speaking into the post. Is there something intrinsically wrong with "church" that it would require management training? It's a worthwhile question to consider.
I have had this conversation recently with friends because, I too have become disillusioned with the "church" here in my area. The social norm here in the south, is that it is just a part of our culture.
I could not agree more with your comment about churches are content controlled. I understand that we have schedules, but I am continually frustrated at the lack of a place for honest discussion on topics that are affecting a local body.
I have also seen and experienced a church bring in a pastor with no ties to the community to "run" the church, only to have the church regress immensely in a short time. Choosing a church is very difficult. One will excel in preaching, but the administration and other facets are light years behind. Some have everything organized and are very personable, however I had more depth from a fortune cookie than the preaching.
Reading the comments has really helped me to be able to verbalize a few things that I was frustrated about. Thanks
What's to be done?
This is so true sometimes, and our church struggles to keep this from happening. We often feel that being congenial is sufficient, and that having a collegiate attitude about the congregation prevents hurt feelings, but it actually hurts more than it helps. As Christians we should always reach out with the love and passion, as Christ did with us.
We are often not earnest in greeting those we encounter in church. We are to be brothers and sisters in Christs, not buddies in Christ. I don't know about you, but I argue with my brothers all the time, but I still love them. We shouldn't be so afraid to reach out to others.
I don't think the Gospel should be watered down to please the masses. Jesus didn't suffer and die in the horrendous way he did to save us from boredom, or to teach us right from wrong (although His life and death did teach us a lot!) or to give us a place to go on Sunday so we can feel righteous and check off "go to church" on a weekly checklist. How can we be so lukewarm!!!!
Math10:32-38 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
If Jesus said there may be a sword between us and our very family members, how much more should there be, complete strangers that don't believe. We must love unbelievers enough to risk rejection, reach out to them and then tell them the Truth in love or they will believe the wrong "gospel" and remain unsaved! Gal1:6-9
I feel that every Sunday morning service should include a Billy Graham style call for a decision for Christ. I don't think there has to be an altar call per se, although I have no objection to it.
Perhaps if you've had bad experiences with fundamentalist churches, an altar call seems too forced or legalistic but as we change with the times, I don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. At the very least, a call to make a decision to follow Jesus is a must. We don't know how much time on earth an individual has left and we mustn't let an opportunity pass to give them the knowledge they need to be saved from their sins. What could be more important?
In my perfect world, which doesn't exist, an unbeliever entering a Christian church building would be welcomed with smiles and a kindly person would ask the newcomer about themselves and as the Spirit leads, make the them feel at home and cared for as a human being. The same thing would happen after the service. There shouldn't have to be committees formed for this. It's called being being our "brother's keeper" and being loving as our dear savior is, even to the point of washing his disciples dirty feet.
The book of Romans speaks of "greeting each other with a holy kiss"(Rom 16:16) and being "kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love"(Rom 12:10) and while I believe he is speaking of relationships between believers, it gives us a clue as to what sort of people we are to be. Not cold and distant, but warm and friendly.
I hope this clarifies a little and although some want to make the unbeliever responsible for "reaching out" when they come to church, I believe we, the little Christs (as you probably know, that is what Christian means) the ones that have known God's love and mercy, have a holy calling to personally make an effort to reach people that are seeking God.
Interesting point about the "alter call," the way I understand "church" (which will be part 3) there's little place for that kind of thing. Gathering believers will like not include non-believers but those who already desire to know or understand the community. The gathering isn't for making converts. Other events are for that.
I also find it interesting your use of the word "alter," which is common lingo in Christian churches. We often don't pause to consider that this is Jewish Temple language. Without a Temple, there is no alter. With Jesus, there is no more need for an alter, for he is the final sacrifice. I think we've imported the idea from Catholic theology that taught Christ's sacrifice is on the "alter" at the eucharistic table. They actually recreated a "Temple" through the cathedral to give semblance to the Jewish Temple that was destoryed.
To carry the metaphor of the "alter call," we usually put it at the stage at the front of the "church." On this "alter" the Lord's Supper is usually placed as well, on those days it is taken as a symbol of sacrifice. It is also on this "alter" that the pastor stands to give his message. The metaphor is uncanny as to how we've made the pulpit as sacred as the "alter" and put the pastor on the alter. All in all, it's very strange language we use in our "churches" but it doesn't really fit at all with Scripture.
I think the greetings you speak of is very possible, but I don't see it as the "church" in it's present form. On my view, the "church" in it's present form isn't the "church" but is something else. Again, this will be in Part 3. Right now, in Part 2, we're discussing what the church is from a big-picture point of view through the historical Word.
By the way, I don't think "Christian" means "little Christ." I think it was a derogatory word for "Christians" that may mean "slave." There are other theories where the word came from as well that point in another direction. At bottom, early "Christians" did not call themselves as such. They saw themselves as part of an already existing community following the Way of Jesus. Again, this is Part 2.
I agree about the altar. I'm not concerned very much about the altar in this conversation though, I'm concerned about telling people what they must do (make a decision) to be born into God's family. A case could be made that the altar is for us. That we are surrendering to God...but I certainly don't feel it's an important enough point to spend much time on, to be honest. (at least in this conversation).
In your second paragraph, you say that in the church "Gathering believers will like not include non-believers but those who already desire to know or understand the community." I would hope that they would desire to know and understand God. I don't understand what you mean by "know and understand the community". Home churches and such certainly could invite unbelievers to come along to worship and learn, and with no set schedule to keep, the church "order" could be rearranged at a moment's notice to accommodate the new person, perhaps learning what their needs are (if they are comfortable sharing) and ministering to them in a very personal, caring way.
I think we're getting off topic a little but I do embrace the word Christian. That's interesting that some scholars understand the word to have a different meaning. Not a big deal to me. I've heard the arguments against calling oneself a Christian and I have made a decision to identify myself as one, even if I may be reviled. While I certainly would never purposely be offensive as the pastors you describe have, I also know that scorn and ridicule often come with the territory when you love God. If being a Christian means being a slave, then so be it. I understand that the word Christian has been thrown around too much and has come to mean something derogatory in some people's eyes, however, people have lied about Jesus since the day he was born and I feel I should be in good company if at times, my motives are misunderstood or if people think I'm unrealistic, or even a bit daft because of my belief in Jesus.
To get back to the topic Dale, may I ask what you think "church" should be like?
As for "know and understand the community," yes, that includes knowing and understanding God. But it is more than that. The community is a revealer, a light shining out God. That should be why the unbelievers are there, because they see God in this community and want more of him. There is more to why I think this, but that's more for the next couple of parts.
Yes, the word "Christian" has fallen on hard times. I have difficulty with the word sometimes myself because of the baggage that comes with it that isn't always connected with the one I serve. It is often considered a label for hypocrites, political moralists, legalists, and people who adhere to a creed rather than a Person. We tend to prefer a "student or apprentice" or Jesus. It takes people off guard and they can reject me for what I actually believe rather than what they think of from the news media, etc.
But we can call ourselves whatever we want. My point is that, for the sake of accuracy, we want to be deliberate and give someone else an opportunity to know us without tempting them to falsely judge.
On what I think a "church" should be like?... well, I don't think a "church" should be like anything. A "church" is something that IS. If you mean what should a service of people getting together look like, well, I think it can look like whatever people want it to look like. It's their prerogative. The problem is, we've overshadowed our identity as the "church" with the services we've put together and the institution we've created. And those are two very different things, which is why I think many are disillusioned with "church." We've been misidentifying for a long time and people are starting to take notice.
More on this in parts 2 and 3! :)
There is a big difference between speaking to tell people what they want to hear and speaking truth. Truth sometimes challenges us. It needn't be obnoxious or offensive, but it should challenge you. And if you're sinning, it should warn you and admonish you.
I hear you on Bible studies...
I'm sharing a lot of thoughts here and I must write before I start again that (obviously) I don't have everything figured out and that I am (I hope) growing and learning. It goes without saying that I struggle with my own personal issues, sins and shortcomings and I don't claim to have all the answers. I like to think, I am open to Truth as I want to please God more than anything, as I'm sure you and Jonalyn do too. I'm enjoying this discourse and hopefully we'll all become more like Jesus as a result of it.
I think I understand the first part of your question. I believe the bible describes The Church as the body of believers and I don't think it has anything to do with a building although believers tend to meet in buildings. :) God does command us in scripture to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together" and so I assemble with other Christians for bible studies, meals together, long talks, walks on the beach, good movies and so on.
I believe the early Christians met in caves or in people's homes. What makes a specific type of building an acceptable gathering place? Is it the size, the lighting, the type of music, the carpeting, the cross on the wall? In John 4:20-24 the woman at the well questions Jesus about where the appropriate place to worship is and he says "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth." We can and should pray to and worship God without ceasing, wherever we are, in a church building, in the grocery store, in our schools, in our workplaces, in our cars and so on. There is nothing wrong with going to a church building to worship and church can be a great place to meet Christians (if you can stick around long enough) but I find little scripturally to support it being mandated.
This being said, the bible does mention leadership in certain churches even using the word bishop (I only see the word pastor used but once in my bible) , so I realize I must be open to leadership. My unbelieving husband is gone (I became a Christian after we married) so I have no male leadership and little female leadership in my life. My personal goal is to find older Christian men and women to guide me and disciple me. It is possible that to find them I will have to go to church buildings. :) And perhaps when it is time for me to mentor younger women as God commands in Titus 2:3-5 I will need to go to a church building to find women looking for help. I guess in the final analysis, and in my experience, for me, a church building MAY be a good place to find other Christians and to learn and to teach and to fellowship, but it isn't the only place.
I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be but I hope my ramblings and especially the scripture verses I've mentioned have been of some help to someone.
I don't think the Bible does command where we meet at "Christians." The "house church" movement can be just as wrongheaded in their identity as the institutional church. The "church" in the New Testament largely consisted of people who also went to synagogue the day before, being identified with the house of Israel and made no connection that Jesus did anything new (but that he did complete some Jewish things just has he promised to the Jews).
The buildings and organizations does seem to be the place to meet people and find other Christians. But as we both know, that's not the only place. People who immerse themselves in local community find Christians all over the place, crossing all the institutional barriers. You and I know that because we're involved in community and conversations.
That verse, "don't forsake the assembling of yourselves," I believe you've interpreted rightly. I have heard many pastors use that verse as the reason you need to be part of their institution. And that's not a warranted interpretation in the text.
As for those leadership positions, yes, "Bishop"... such a Church of England word, which was the purpose of the most famous English Bible, the KJV, to reinforce the titles in their state church. However, I'm still wondering about these positions of "elder" (bishop), and "deacon" and such, whether they are attached to these institutions we create or part of the larger Christian community in a town... I'm leaning more toward the town than the institution. That's the only way I know to logically fit all the other services of the "church" that are not run by the institution of the "church," like hospitals, non-profits, etc. Surely, surely, surely, God intends these gifted leaders in the "church" to do more than officiate the politics of what happens at the building throughout the week.
More in Parts 2 and 3!
I agree heartily with everything else you just wrote. R
Oh I wish you lived close to me. I agree so totally with your ideas about fellowship!
I like what you describe as a get together. And while we should have leaders like elders, I'm just unsure if today's use of "elder" is actually the Biblical use. I'm on a hunt to figure that out.
I'm actually part of a "house church" (for lack of a better name for everyone involved)... one of our values is "no childcare." It's a great group. We've been meeting for over a year now and is a great oasis among our busy ministry schedule. We can be "known" here.
Agreed, churches that meet in homes probably aren't right for everyone. I wasn't ready for it a few years ago myself-Churches also can provide a lot of different programs that help people-and people in our culture seem to like programs.
I'm ok with elders being older. They have wisdom that seminary can't teach...in my opinion there should only be rare exceptions. I'm not sure what age I would consider older though...I do think that God works those things out. Spirit filled leaders naturally rise-shouldn't need to promote themselves. Matt 23:11-12 comes to mind. I believe younger people can an should give input, but defer to elders. Why? Older have experiences that teach them and bring the bible to life like (most) books never can. They've often dealt with issues like death in their family, depression, job losses etc that most younger people just haven't experienced. That's just my opinion though.
I like how you put your elder point... I just wonder if they could do a lot more among the body than largely serving as a board of directors at the "institution." I wonder if the "institution" isn't a distraction from a larger service to the community. Perhaps "elders" in the Scripture have less to do with the "institution" and more to do with those sitting at the gates... just a thought.
The word "elder" is the Greek is derived from various words, all denoting some form of seniority bestowed by position or age.
As for "home church" being the only way...I posted earlier that I don't think so. I think it needs to start in homes, with small groups, but that is by no means the only way to worship and there is freedom as you said before Dale.
There are also many rotten home churches so home church isn't always good just because it's in a home. But when it's good it's very good!
In my experience, only an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit can meet this need. I needed to see the power of God active in my life to heal, guide, and reveal truth. The Bible is the living word of God, but the Holy Spirit makes it relevant for me today. Without the power, all we have is a form of Godliness. And who wants that?
Instead, our belief system should be positively formed based on the specific revelation God has left us in Scripture. A careful study of the local church in Scripture yields a structured environment that includes leadership, requirements for those leaders, church government and instructions about order.
Obviously there is going to be some latitude where God was silent, but let's not set out to abandon the organized church as if it's entirely up to us to figure out the best way to do this.
This is something we've lost in the church when philosophy was no longer allowed to be the handmaiden of theology. We lost tools to critique ourselves intelligently and often repeat the same theological mantras that may be inaccurate.
I don't know if the Bible is as clear on the leadership and church government or instructions about order as you say. Many, many scholars would disagree on what any of those are supposed to look like. And as long as we read the Scripture through our own denominational lenses, we may not see just how unclear the Scripture is on this matter... at least for the institution.
Scripture of course if not crystal clear on some of these issues (which offers freedom), but it does provide guidance. For example, elders, deacons, qualifications, day of the week for gathering, orderly services, services at all, church government (Acts 15), etc.
If our "new" standard has a foundation rooted in mere opinion and ignores what God has made clear, we are making church into our own image. That doesn't mean we can't correct where needed, but to abandon all and start over as if God doesn't care what we do with church is problematic at best.
1) This discussion isn't about making a new standard. I haven't heard anyone say the Bible isn't a the standard nor that we should stand on another foundation. If there is any "new" standard today, it may very well be the status quo we've assumed for a long time on what "church" is. I believe there's an older standard that was abandoned.
2) Nobody has said we should abandon all and start over.
3) The guidance you speak of from Scripture could very well meet all the criteria of Scripture and not look like the "church" institution nor its requirements that we have today.
4) Acts 15 is church government? I don't see it. However, I do think something in Acts 15 does speak against many of our assumptions as to what the church is. There are some Jewish clues in that text that are quite striking to me.
And the abandonment is implied . . . it doesn't have to be expressly stated.
As far as Acts 15, the Presbyterians base much of their church polity on this chapter. I don't happen to agree with them, but the point is that there are at least issues to debate from Scripture (a standard) as to how the church should look.
I'm not trying to go point by point. I just want to encourage readers to base their opinion of church on a standard instead of remaking church into our image.
Some readers are offering some great Scripture.
Remaking church into our image is indeed a problem. And yet I think that's what has happened for the last 1700 years... The Catholics use Acts 15 as the first example of an ecumenical council and so justified the many, many, many others they did to give us official church doctrine (universal church, not just local). I happen to think that's not what the chapter is for either, though councils are helpful.
Even the Scripture, though a standard, can be easily abused. Which is why our shared experiences as God's people are so important to check, not the Scripture, but our interpretation of it.
Check out some of the other posts and you'll see a lot of ideas based on Scriptural assumptions. I think some helpful ideas are brewing. I don't believe, at the end of the day, we have to get rid of what we're doing. I think we have to RE-THINK our identity and how to classify what we're doing. I believe we'd have fewer casualties today and be more kingdom minded as the trajectory of God's people.
I'm glad you've taken the time to discuss on here.
I'm not sure if "progressive" thinking is always downward. The point is not to be progressive nor conservative, but to be truthful and honest. The Catholic Church was progressive in its time. The Reformation was progressive. Heck, the last 50 years have been progressive. I'm not interested in being progressive. I'm interested in figuring out a healthy way for people to be free within the boundaries of what the Bible actually says rather than what we've always done.
We have an opportunity these days to help re-think what "church" is and we have to seize that opportunity. The world is waiting for us to bring better news.
I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a little pro-active in visiting a church. A new person is just as capable of reaching out to an unknown congragant (sp?) as congragant is to a new visitor. Let them know why you are there; what your interests are in their church and what your likes and dislikes are.
In my church we make every effort to match new visitors/members with others who have the same interests and callings. We have many small groups then grow and attract new members this way. I visit my church often and I'm always running into people I want/need to talk to. It's not only because they have embraced me and helped me in what Christ calls me to do, but also because I have actively engaged them and work hard to make my life in the church productive and meaningfull.
We can't just look at one side of the coin....
It seems we are hitting some of surface features here instead of really trying to get to the heart of the issue. Is there an "intrinsic" aspect of the church today that is hitting people the wrong way?
I recently started grad school and I have already heard plenty of comments about why church is repulsive in just the first month. You find many different reasons, which points to the dynamic or dialectical nature of the church as well as the existential reality of the person making these comments. Its complicated because the church and the people exposed to the church are technically two organisms and not two stagnate institutions to be studied.
This may, in part, lie at the heart of the issue. Evangelicals have attempted to make the church stagnate in nature. There is a confusion that objective truth equals objective truth-following. In this Postmodern culture, this is heresy. Ironically, Postmodernism has given the church a way out from playing this game with modernity - the search for objectivity through reason alone is fading as we realize humanity and existence is much more than reason and abstract concepts. C. S. Lewis said theology is practical, and the more we focus on how these objective truths become existential realities for us, the more the culture will be accepting. As you said, Dale, the foundation of creation and existence is relational.
I hope this does not come off as trying to be soft with church or seeker friendly. It is not that at all. People see seeker friendly attitudes as just salesmanship and manipulation. What is intrinsic about the church that could be the source of this repulsion is the modernistic nature of it. I think the surface issues stem, partly, from this.
Obviously, this is much more complex than this, but, in my experience, making the above changes does soften the seekers heart some. I have seen it as the professor I work with can melt a hostile room with the explanation of Judaism as being relational at its heart. All of the sudden what has become out-there dogmatism has become someone, a "who", that faces them and calls them, and they are softened.
I ask this because I am reading a book that talks about how the Bible is a story, with a plot, of our relationship with God, and what God has done to make that happen. Infact in part of the book he makes the statement, "Those who read the book in faith become part of the plot." and from what you state, that is what people are now looking for....to become part of the plot, instead of someone who sits and listens to the story.
mmmmmmmmmm.....a new form of our reformation???
You are right we don't just want to sit and listen to the story, not if God is who he claims to be and is inviting his people to follow. For too long we've thought of "church" as something else, content to listen to the priest defining our lives. "Church" became a place we went to rather than something larger, rather than what it is...
Dale saw kind of where I was going. I pretty much was saying Evangelicals have made Christianity into a stagnate, air-tight worldview. It is objective truth. However, we have made our lives a part of this objective reality, or, as Dale mentioned, we have abstracted creeds, doctrine, and even ways of life in the process.
Your story comment is kind of a long the same lines of what I was saying. It is seeing God as a "who" instead of a "what". He is a person to be encountered and not a system to be a part of. This is what I meant about the professor I work with. He views God in a relational way, and this softens the hearts of people.
I have noticed, at least in college, that to view God this way is radical for many people. They here a lot about personal relationship with Christ and so on, but they see that phrase as empty because they view the world in a very modern, scientific, objective way. Once you break that barrier though it can open eyes.
To me, if there is an intrinsic value of the church today that is not sitting well with others, it is not going to be the symptoms such as actions. It is going to be the very way that we view the world around us ultimately. The reason that Christianity seems so dogmatic, cold, and out there is because the foundations have become abstractions in thought and action. But maybe I am hitting a different vein than you wanted to address, or am missing a point. Regardless, look forward to the next post and more comments here!
Is this your experience?
I think its because the church yells too much. We talk the talk but never walk the walk.
On the issues the mainstream church loves to yell about (abortion, and divorce) there is a gap in action. How is it that conservative Christians have a higher devorse rate then the rest of the population but we love to hate it. Or on abortion we protest it but we never do anything for the women who are dealing with it.
The church of the future needs to be more action oriented then voice. We need to whisper our message and move.
Because we're better at moralisms than cultural transformation these days, we'll always been seen as talkers and not walkers. This includes social action as well as culture making.
But what believers in towns today considers everyone in town to be the "church"? They usually consider their institution, under their pastor, and their chosen accountability, within the town to be their "church." Our very vocabulary reveals our prejudice against a larger vision.
Dale, I've worked in ministry for over 3 years on a church team, and we pretty much helped build it up from the ground. But the people I started to work with had a squabble (of sorts) with the head pastor, etc... and left this church to start another ministry elsewhere. I have also left in the past year to go to a new church where I am quite happy now. But the reason for all the shuffle among our team was based on being disgruntled about what the church was offering, and I learned some important concepts here:
1. Everyone comes to church with different expectations, and ideas of how they should be spiritually fed. Some feel it's through the music , other the preaching, others the extended ministries of the church (youth groups, married/couples nights, etc.) and if they are not "fed" according to their expectations,they leave upset
2. Church , according to the Bible, is a gathering together or fellowshipping with believers. It is not about rituals, formalities, or anything of the kind. The believers in Paul's day met in houses, and were not about rituals, etc. Why do we expect that today?
3. Despite the groups/activities we form in our "church", is there a true connection being made? Paul's type of church worked since people connected outside of the confined walls. They lived in the community with each other, ate, slept, laughed, and played together. How do we connect with each other? Is it just a Sunday thing to do , and we never see each other elsewhere?
As you can see, I have never been about formalities and what people typically "perceive"church to be. I believe that the only way to change the "bad feelings" is to change our thinking of the church into God's thinking. See what he says about it, and follow after the patterns already laid down for us. Not get so tied up in dogma we can't see it and benefit from it.
Good post. Thanks!
If the Holy Spirit were removed from any gathering, who would notice? (Willard)
I wouldn't be surprised if in the New Jerusalem, 80% of "evangelicals" are nowhere to be found. And those who never darkened a "church" doorway will romp up and down its streets with irrepressible laughter.
The Universal Church is unblemished and invincible since the shredding of the veil...and we need not worry about her.
The sad thing is that the church is so faddish that it will turn self-analysis and soul searching for its real meaning into a movement...itself another distraction from blunt-faced and prostrate attentiveness, gripping white-knuckled the floorboards of the Throne-room to deal with its fundamental dishonesty, so carefully wrapped in the truths in which belief is pretended.
"Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
Cheers.
I am with you that the search becomes a new movement to be identified with. One of my struggles with Willow is that they export so much... they export their old way of doing things and then when they analyze, they export their apology and another new way of doing things.
We've got to get away from the 'trend' and 'movement' and 'export' and 'next best thing' assumptions and models. We have to be content to be ourselves and take responsibility for what is before us.
How to pull this off? First of all, if a congregation was insistent on this sort of action by its membership the membership would likely plummet. “If we do that some will leave”. Yes they would because being a reflection of Christ is not warming a pew on Sunday. Of course, a congregation cannot force Christ-like lives from its members and it must come from the member, self will and love of the Father enough to do His will.
This is what I would like to see happen. It is the sort of thing Voice of the Martyrs proves is possible but most of us want little part of doing. We do not want persecution and most are very, very fortunate how easy we have our Christianity. I wonder how fortunate we really are in the eyes of our creator and maker.
One thing about it, the action I suggest is not generational by nature. Each generation is uniquely equipped to reach its own and be involved with others, showing Christ in actions and teaching as opportunities are made and presented. I know, this is too ideal a goal and would mean great changes for most.
The institution has curiously created budgets and payroll that need to be met by a growing body of givers to support it. And that assumption is quite possibly an intrinsic problem to the identity of "church" as you've clearly spelled out as relational.
Today is my first visit to your blog and very much appreciate the thoughts of other posters, including you insightful replies.
Interesting how we discuss so openly here and feel no need to push our "brandname". Fewer walls of that sort may help the relational aspect with others. After all, is not our covenant with God relational?
God Bless.
Make sure you check out part 2 on this topic. I posted it this morning. Just go to www.dalefincher.com and you'll see it at the top.
I do wish there was more open discussion in our larger communities, as well as in our "churches." The internet has helped move the conversation forward. As more Christians take responsibility for themselves and step into the conversation, more good will happen. I'm a firm believer that the Spirit moves through all of his community, not just the paid staff or the MDiv degree.
Thanks for stopping by!!
1) better understand the crisis (and some causes) among all the noisy chatter.
2) know better how to speak informatively and intelligently in our local community. We want to be part of the positive change to the glory of God.
however, as a full-time co-pastor, i have become more and more aware of the complexities involved with shepherding. i like the way that Chesterton put it when he said "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."
the institutionalization sneaks in, and often for 'necessary' reasons. the wisdom and discernment required to navigate through the needs, through the complaints, through our convictions, and through the seeming successes is often beyond the scope of any of us. we are left having to do our best.
maybe what we need is more transparency from our leaders, but this generally doesn't work out so well for us pastors. In such a celebrity driven culture, managing appearances becomes another 'necessary' means of sustainability.
i guess that what i'm saying is that when these ideas are taken from the vacuum of the blog and inserted into a body, the effects are much more difficult to anticipate than we realize and the potential to damage the critical mass of a church is always a risk.
of course we must lay all this in God's hands and move forward in obedience, but understanding His calling is never as clear as we'd like it to be.
all of this to say that, when i was a youth pastor, i was far more idealistic. while i still care as passionately for the church as i ever did, today i find myself a bit more sympathetic for those guys and gals currently shepherding.
as one of my professors put it, "you'll suffer as much from the church as for it." that is a wonderful calling, but not an easy one.
The difficult thing is getting at an unprecedented issue of struggle and unrest in the general "church" today. I have hunches as to how to think more clearly about this, but the discussion also proves valuable. Hopefully, influencing each other, we gain insight we've never had before and go forward into the next chapter of the "church." I do think the issues we are facing today are just as much 'layperson' driven as 'leadership' driven, largely, on my view, based on assumptions as to what "church" is that we all carry. That you even have to mention a 'celebrity' culture in the church is sad... and reveals a part of the issue.
The discussion moves in this constructive direction in part 2.
Chesterton is always fun, being that he was a reformer himself and had lots of clarity on both what was wrong AND what was right. His way forward was mirth and imagination. That's an example for us all who tend to lean too closely to self-importance.
Thanks for commenting, Jeff... I hope you'll stick around to offer more.
PS. You were a kind and good pastor to my children when they attended your youth group studies. I thank you for that.
I think I can help you out here. Not only has my family given up on church, but we attend home studies with many families and singles who have done the same or are in the process of leaving church. We were leaders in our local church community and decided to call it quits after speaking to our pastor for the umteenth time about lying from the pulpit and finding him unrepentant. Everyone we have spoken to about this seems to have the same issues.
There are two problems with church today. Problem one is mammon. You cannot serve both God and mammon, but the modern day church seems to be wanting to do both. It seems that Jesus came and we are no longer under the Law, except for the "law" of tithes, which seems to have passed straight through from Deut 12 to the modern day, getting a little twist along the way with pastors and preachers becoming modern day "high priests". Totally unscriptural since Jesus is now our High Priest and mediator, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of making a buck? Whilst many of us are glad and blessed to "give", the church is not content with trusting God to supply it's needs, but wants to budget. It's wants to know exactly how much it's "members" earn and then force them to somehow fork over 10% of that monthly, in order to ensure it can budget effectively. You can also only become a "member" of the "body of Christ" when you agree to the terms of the church, amongst which is this disclosure of your income and paying of tithes. New members are invited to "partnership" or "membership" in the church and asked to sign a form agreeing to tithing. How is this Biblical? Don't we become members of the body of Christ when we repent and are forgiven by God?
When the leaders of the church cannot trust God to supply their needs and turn to abusing scripture to emotionally bully people into giving then church becomes a business or a social club and stops preaching truth for fear of offending "paying" members. Wherever I go people are offended right out of church by the fact that a place of worship has become a place of business instead.
The second problem is the clickiness of church. I have moved a few times and everytime I go to a new church in a new town I have to "prove" myself to them. They treat me as if I cannot possibly be saved unless it happened in their church. It's not so much a "body of believers" as a group of buddies willing to let you in once you've figured out the secret handshake and secret language. Each church has it's own buzzwords and woe to you if you use the right word in the "wrong" context with them. They don't try to understand you, they try to make it hard for you to get into their little circle. Oh they're friendly, give you the high five and hug when the preacher says to, but you quickly realise it's part of the marketing strategy. They are not real friends and don't really want to hang out with you outside of church, unless they notice you no longer attending, then you suddenly get those calls; "Hey buddy, long time no see, what's happening?" Outside of homegroup they hardly ever noticed you existed until you stopped attending church. In fact everytime they spoke to you, you felt it was their "job".
So basically the problem is that church has become a big, clicky, social club that abuses scripture, out of context, to fill it's coffers. Unfortunately many people today actually read their Bibles and have come to realise what tithing actually is and refers to. They are also seeking for a life of trusting God for their needs and cannot see that same commitment. God's house has become a den of liars who will do and say anything to keep their business on budget each month.
And God forbid that someone who actually has a clue about scripture should attend church. No sooner have you asked the pastor/preacher/minister a few questions about his reinterprestation of scripture than you find yourself effectively gagged. So afraid is he/she that someone might hear you ask the questions on your heart, that they tell you to shut up or get out ...in the nicest possible way off course. It doesn't much matter how long you've been with the church, just don't rock the boat.
I guess this links to something else that's been said on here, the inflexibility. We need another Luther to nail these lies and money-making schemes to the church door, because now that this has become the comfortable norm and everyone's getting away with imagining they're the MD of a God-franchise they're none to much in a hurry to hear the truth.
Why follow truth when the lie is so much more profitable?
I think you are right that people are getting more educated, at least those that care to. I've often found the tithe odd. Yet, that the "church" often speaks in tithe-talk today, shows that they view of the "church" as a replacement for the Jews and the "church" the replacement for Levites. Has the "church" recreated Israel without Israel?
I think that leads to the larger answer to what the church IS. I'll be talking more specifics about that for discussion on a soon-to-be post.
Mammon, yes. Something is askew.
Thanks for your post!
It is really interesting that we both can go at the same goal, but with different views on how it should be achieved.
I think that we are very likely going for the same goal. No doubt. And we want similar things.
Yet I think the larger thing to consider is not HOW church is done (though that is very important) but what church IS. If "church" is a people, then how did the "institution" replace it as an identity? If you asked 100 people on the street, 99 would tell you the "church" is that organization on the corner. And the next corner and the next. And everyone on those corners would be under different leadership, etc. If you asked the average church person who was the head of the church, they would likely say the pastor or the elders. They would not likely say "the Messiah is the Head of the Church" as Paul told us. Our identity, both biblically and psychologically, has been institutionalized. We don't think of ourselves as the House of Israel, as Paul did. We don't immediately think of our God as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which is my name forever," the way Jesus and Paul and the rest of the Jewish nation did.
This touches on "how" we do church in that few people have a concern for the Jews nor understand that the fate of the world is bound up with them. Both the Catholic Church and the Reformers are at fault for this, assuming the Jews time was over. Yet the place of the Jews and their theology is all over Scripture from beginning to end. It is so large, it is good evidence just how easily our cultural lenses will influence us. We fragment the story by slipping in some strange view of "church" that has become a gentile affair, adrift from Old Testament teaching, adrift from the Jews, adrift from the Jewish assumptions Jesus taught.
So when people decide to leave the "church" as an institution, they are looked down upon, etc. In reality, they may not have left anything but the local "community center" that some Christians built and put unbibical guilt upon them for not attending and being under THAT leadership in THAT way.
I'm sure you can see where this is going... and if I'm right, the "church" as we know it has some explainin' to do.
I appreciate you, as an elder visiting this blog, how kind and generous and humble you are in all your posts. I always appreciate people willing to consider another point of view, especially those in leadership. As an itinerant speaker, I find that a rare quality among leaders. So the Spirit is alive in you, and even though the computer screen, it is visible.
have 6.Probably we need again persecution,liberties
cut,so we can depend in the Lord,a few members assist
to pray services, this is te trues and reality in our church.
Persecution does make people serious, but it also snuffs out churches. History has shown this. I'd like us to work at being dependent on the Messiah while we are still free to do so. The church flourishes best with freedom... and it gives the nonchalant more opportunity to become spiritual responsible.
As a gathering of individuals, our primary concern with Church is "what do I get out of it". This might explain why people feel disconnected, socially (when they attend and no one greets them), emotionally (when people suffer alone in silence as others are too busy with their own lives and no one RELALY wants a genuine and sincere answer to "How are you?") and theologically (the "feel-good" messages someone mentioned in these posts, which do not address the real needs of members/attendees).
Instead, if we were a place where individuals gather, we come as we are and BECOME a community, one that has the burden of responsibility to minister and reach out to each other.
The difference is between being "independent" and "interdependent"
"Church"? ...A Way Forward!
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-ex...