-
Website
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-exactly-is-church-unraveling.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The following passage comes to mind: Jesus looked at him (the rich young ruler) and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus revealed the young ruler's motives (to the young ruler and us) when he presented him with a choice. My question is, why do we look to the church (or parents, or spouse, or gov't, or etc...) when we have a Daddy and Messiah who have already proven their love to us? I suspect it is because we want others to do what we are unwilling to do ourselves. We do not need better churches as much as we ourselves need to become better lovers of our Daddy.
How do we get people to think outside the "church" box and not identify themselves with merely an organization that cannot fulfill what they are looking for anyway?
Its true that programs and structures can easily become ways of avoiding our need to depend upon God. Yet, I don't think the problem is in programs and structures per se, it is when we trust programs and structures more than Jesus. The kingdom of God definitely has structure and even programs, but they are an extension of God's purposes, not substitutes for God. Jesus got ticked (if I may use that term) at some of the religious leaders because they twisted the law to thwart the purposes of God. It was not the law he blamed but their wickedness.
The church was birthed because of what Jesus did, it is about who Jesus is now, and it is the bride of Jesus. So descriptively speaking, whenever its members have a different origin, a different aim, or a different future, it is not the church. The problem for the observer is that two churches with identical doctrine, programs and structures can be on opposite sides, spiritually speaking. The only Biblical way I know of telling the difference is, after the fact, by their fruit. Its not very satisfying, I know, but this too sends me back to focusing on the nature of my own relationship with God. If the church needs more lovers of God and people then I need to become one.
Would that we would seek God and his love on our own. Yet the culture belief is so entrenched, it will take nothing less than a spiritual shock to get many people to think differently about the "community center" on the corner we call "church."
In reality, we're all the church and get to act likewise. We can't expect the "community center" to be the church or meet our needs. If anything, it might facilitate connection. But from what I see, the misconception of what church is is so deep, the common knee-jerk response as to what a church is and should do revolves around the "community centers" we've created with building and staff.
What I'd like to see is less politicking about the insitution and Christians speaking out against disenfranchising people who don't want to attend the "community centers." If anything, we should invite these into our homes and let them vent... and show them love. And not require them to be involved in the "community center" if it so behooves them...
pride is a huge beast with which we battle everyday and the only weapon that will defeat him is humility. this response may not be analytical enough, but sometimes i feel that we over-analyze things to death when the answer (humility) is staring us all in the face just waiting for us to embrace it.
Humility comes in forms that are often risky: like a willingness to change our minds. We don't associate humility with this, but that's exactly what it is.
Humility is a great start!!
And in light of that humility, how would you define the "church" in one sentence?
i believe we are a culture made up of people who pride themselves on being able to clearly pinpoint what their individual identities are. we are consumed with identity as it defines who we are as individuals. there are racial identities, sexual identities, economic identities, social identities, class identities, regional identities, and, of course, spiritual/religious identities (of course, this list could be much longer...)
my experience with folks who are american church-goers is that their identity is wrapped up in their church (ie. the building, the community within the building, the programs, the rituals, the schedule, the hierarchy.) when we talk about removing these creature comforts (and i don't say that creature comforts are intrinsically bad, just not necessary,) we threaten identities. defenses go up because we are attacking who people are, in a sense.
i am not saying knowing who you are (your identity) is a bad thing. however, when we make our identity something that is not what god is (love), we are being prideful, putting ourselves before him.
(see, told you i wasn't very articulate...)
i can't give you one sentence. i am just unable to do it. but here are my thoughts on what the church should look like in the light of humility.
i believe i am the church. i am the church in this computer lab, i am the church in the grocery store, i am the church at mcdonald's, i am the church at work, i am the church when i interact with my 2 year old, i am the church when i am at church and the church should always look like christ, who happened to die a criminal's death for his enemies (last quote inspired by greg boyd...if you haven't read him, you should...) i believe my primary purpose as the church on this earth is not to figure out the best way to be in community with my fellow churches. i would say that is part of it. but when my main focus becomes how best to manage a meeting of the churches (individuals) and the creature comforts that entails, i have missed the point of being the church. i believe that we need to be in community with other churches (individuals) in order to challenge one another and to practice humility when we are challenged or the one doing the challenging. however, my primary goal as the church is and should be to model god's love wherever i am and in whatever i am doing. it is to be a light in a dark world...why would i put most of my focus/mental energy on where the light supposedly already is? it is a humbling thing to be a light in the darkness because if people are seeing light in the darkness, that must mean that i'm not in the way (ie. i am humbling myself so that god can be seen in me.) i hesitate to give an example of this because some may label me as a do-gooder. if i am out of my mind, it is for the sake of christ. people should observe me in daily circumstances and wonder about me. it is humbling for me to respond with peace in a stressful situation because i personally tend toward blowing up. this is not natural, so darkness is pierced. it is humbling for me to apologize to my 2 year old for acting like a fool.
i am rambling now. i guess my heart breaks when the church is so consumed with itself. i don't deny the need for healthy community, i just don't understand how we think we can be healthy church individuals in a dark world if we can't even seem to overcome our creature comfort differences within our own community.
most of my thoughts on the word 'church' have been shaped by the bible. however, i have gleaned some wisdom from 3 contemporary writers as well: greg boyd (he has influenced me greatly,) donald miller, and dave browning.
In considering churches in general ( not the universal assembly or kingdom of Christians) I read this passage from Revelation 2:1-4. The interesting part is the first paragraph below which is words of praise, good words about the church. What congregation today would not be pleased to have similar words said about them. Ahh..time to pat ourselves on the back because of good deeds, hard work, perseverance, no toleration of wickedness. Yet the kicker is next and apparently counts more than all the rest: They have forgotten their first love.
“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: now your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
How easily a church can fall into this very situation. I wonder, have churches forgotten their first love and have some not known it from the get go? Scary as it is, has my church done this very thing? Have we substituted other things for our first love?
Return THE FIRST LOVE to the church and the church should become something fresh and new again. How to do that? First, someone please define FIRST LOVE as the bible means it. And get ready to gain some new converts to Christ and to loose a few pew warmers.
Is this a clue as to part of what needs to be done? I will appreciate any comments on this, including you definition of THE FIRST LOVE we are to live and how to instill that afresh in settled members. I personally have not seen this done beyond a few individuals.
What we "believe our church to be" considering Dale's fine lists above certainly is affected by our self image of how good we are in God's eyes and how we "are doing" as individuals and as congregation with responsibility to that group.
I see re-discovering our First Love as a good starting point and I see that as a good direction for my heart. So, where to look and find this Love?
Great point about the "first love." I think, the first love is remembering God again in his son, the Messiah, in friendship. This was a constant battle of Israel, forgetting their first love, and running after idolatry. For the early "church," it was the same (for the "church" did not disconnect itself from the Commonwealth of Israel)... they identified with the same story, the same truth, the same love, the same God. Many in this church were Jewish and gentile proselytes.
If I had an experience that paralleled this today, it would be among many conservative evangelicals and some fundamentalists. They started with zeal and love but became burdened down with a fear they didn't have everything right. In the pursuit of truth, they forgot it was for love and freedom. Truth does not equal love. Truth helps love. Love rejoices in truth. But for all the watchdogging and discernment movements I've seen these days, I've seen a terrible lack of love and, in many ways, a long tangent away from friendship with God.
What I also find interesting in this passage is that he's speaking to the "church" in Ephesus. This is very different than our thinking. We might think of the Baptist or the Lutheran "churches" in our town, but to think of the whole assembly in the whole town... they were somehow all connected and suffered a similar thing. They had the same identity.
You've touched on something important, tomdart. When thinking of the "church," we cannot limit that to our own congregation (as we know it). Obviously, God is pointing us to something bigger. In this context of John's, it was a whole community, not just isolated ones in the city.
However we define "church," it has to be big enough to include this meaning in the definition!
"If the church is supposed to be comprised of a body of believers, yet has become more of a business, hasn't the church become more like a prostitute than what God intended it to be?"
I love this statement for so many reasons... are we selling our "body" for material gain, or are we truly uniting together to draw closer to Jesus? Jesus' teachings are so simple, yet we make his message so complicated when we warp in the cloaks of self- righteousness, business, denominations, etc. Think about who Jesus was when he was on earth... a simple looking man who was homeless, and relied on the body (the church) for a place to sleep,yet never sacrificed the message of truth as a result of his status in life. He was relevant without complicated sound systems, media, or even a church building. The mountainside, country, and even a garden was a teaching place. People loved and flowed him just for these reasons... he was genuine, he cared about people for who they were, not for what they could give him. And he didn't judge, condemn, or criticize anyone. His message was the same for the tax collector, the thief on the cross, and the rich young ruler.
How can you not love a man like that, or want to be more like him? Back to simplicity, the true heart of worship... it's all about Jesus.
What I love about your highlighting of Jesus is that you demonstrate how relational Jesus was and how he wasn't fixed in an institution. In fact, he was all over Israel, as part of Israel, giving a message FOR Israel. And the place where he rested his head wasn't the "church" as we know it, for Acts hadn't yet arrived. But it was the church in another sense... it was God's people, a people he created and chose for the very purpose.
What has happened with the institutional "church" is not that it has failed to live out it's mission (though some places have), but because the people are not an institution. Today's "church" (as we know it) is, on my view, just an auxiliary of the people of God, like a community center is to a town. We have mistakenly taking the community center and called it the whole town. In reality, the community of God are to mingle and live together wherever they find themselves. If they want to build a community center, that's their decision, but we cannot pretend the community center is the "church". I believe, m ost of our understandings of the people of God on earth would start undoing themselves if this perspective. Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves to be part of community. The "institutional" approach won't do because it is too small and unfit for the purpose. This is an intrinsic issue today and we're watching it burst at the seams... like putting new wine in old wine skins (though I don't think Jesus metaphor was about this :)).
I remember when I was a child, the church was a representation of the community you lived in, rare was the person who would drive 10 or 15 miles to attend church, and church 'shopping' was practically non-existant. Frankly, anyone attending your church outside your community was welcomed but thought of oddly, as if she/he had no family (church family) to share with.
The idea of community was an important value when I was a kid, I imagine it was an even more important value in centuries past, and due to the advances in technology, the value has become less important over the years. I think this is where Pathlighter25's brutal but truthfull assesment comes into play.
In a world of technogy where you can reach more people thru the www then you can by walking down the street where you live, the community value gets lost, or at least redifined to an extreme extent. That, coupled with the 'quick fix' attitude and the craving for self gratification that we have instilled on society, gives way to the church 'prostituting' itself to satisfy the masses.
It's funny when I think about it, but the church is always trying to be all things to all people, and I think it can be done, but only thru the teachings of Jesus and the Love of God. But the church, in it's wisdom, doesn't see that.
They think big churches, with multiple curriculums, music for the masses, and something for everyone is the answer. I think the heads of the churches (nationally) encourage this because it boosts their numbers (artificially, of course) and helps bring in large amounts of loose donations (money not tithed) and it has great appeal to them.
Of course this can be extremely damaging to most churches, as in our Presbyterian Church we may have a membership of 750 people, but only 300 regularly in attendance, but the Presbytery requires us to pay Per capitol on each person on our roster - so we end up loosing money and not effectively ministering to people.
This causes the church to think of new ways to minister, to attract more people, who won't regularly attend, to make more money....and the vicious circle goes round and round. It cripples churches that are well off, and destroys churches that are poor.
I think the time is comming where the traditional church needs to be phased over into a new entity. I hate the thought of having to do this, but it's God's Will not mine, and if we truly care about that; then we must act on it.
I can't believe what you have to pay to the denomination for membership, etc... that should speak to something deeply wrong. What did Jesus teach us about putting unlawful and unnecessary burdens on the backs of his people?
If the "church" as described in Scripture are the people of God, then why all this other stuff. The church CAN be all things to all people, because the people of God are THAT diverse. But when we institutionalize people, funneling them into one particular bottle of one particular color, something happens. Growth gets stunted because people learn to become a shape of the institution rather than themselves. And theology gets stunted because we stick to our distinctives and identity as an institution rather than the always growing view of identity with the Jewish Messiah.
I think you are right about fragmented community. And this is very likely the reason that when people are institutionalized who live in fragmented community, then we cannot expect the institution to hold up the weight. It becomes manufactured, even phony. Expectations are made but not kept. "Leadership" as we know it cannot really do the work... I wonder even if we've got the "leadership" wrong in trying to steer all these people.
Thanks for the insights. Keep 'em coming.
I think it is important to focus on the gentleness of Jesus, as well as the power put forth in his teachings. I believe a proper balance of the two will actually bring us closer to the true definition of the "church."
To reiterate, most of the discussion seems to be centered around disgust with unsatisfactory methodology and practices, and lack of concern for individuals within the body. In gentleness, we point out these "faults", and move to make positive changes that benefit the whole. Note: the leadership itself (in the hierarchical sense often seen today) may not ever change, but what keeps the people in the "body" from implementing their own changes?
And this should be done in keeping with the concept of power and gentleness brought forth in God's Word. Not done in "bash your neighbor and leaders" sort of manner, but in a reverent manner. I do find that this is somewhat lacking at times when we become disgusted with all the wrong we see. We are eager to change things, or to move away from the rigidity and passivity, but we forget what we came to receive in the first place: more of Jesus. More of that passion that fills our hearts and gives us a desire to live for Him. We find this by taking on His "yoke" and learning from Him.He is meek and humble, and always acts in gentleness.
But we have to understand Jesus context was always Jewish. And what if we found out that the word for "church" in Jesus vocabulary was actually the "Commonwealth of Israel"? In other words, what if we created an "institution" separated from this commonwealth? It would be like making sand castles in the sand box and not realizing the real castle was beside you with open doors....
That's my challenging thought. Your other words on the "quality" of gods people, learning meekness and humility are a must. But in what "story" are we learning this humility? If it's within Jesus story, what was his story? That will define what "church" is as well as the mission.
So, what do some do? They split, leave, go elsewhere and may begin with others a community church congregation, all aimed at solving the problems they faced in a more rigid brand name environment.
Do they succeed? A few do. A few find a renewal and revival of heart and spirit. For those Christians my heart sings. What they often find difficult is keeping this success fresh and vital and must take care not to become their own creators of a rigid environment. Traditions are not bad when supporting good. Yet, tradition is deeply ingrained and that often painted with brand name directions. Like hidden bigotry, tradition is threatened by openness and change and newness may simple seem wrong to us. This rising of ingrained tradition is possibly a fall for those seeking a new beginning.
Throwing away rigidity to become closer to Christ will sometimes present a new set of problems. For instance, a community church forms, love is espoused and practiced and through that comes acceptance and love of others, surely as Christ wants it to be. Yet, this very movement to gain freedom and employ love in the name of Christ leads to one critical error: We forget God is also a God of wrath and obedience. God has given us certain commands and through the scripture are implied directions of the believer which are pleasing to the Father. The new church may become all things to all people and the power of obedience is watered down and to some extent forgotten in the name of loving all people. Forgotten is that Godly discipline comes from love and that God does chastise His own. The Word can become secondary.
What do I do? I stick where I am. I do the best I can there and work the best I can with others. You see, I am not so sure I am strong enough to trek out and start something fresh or that for me it would even be wise. I try to encourage others and find in return I am encouraged and strengthened. Above all, I make prayer fully available and do not in any way discount the driving force of His Spirit through us if we only follow His direction, unknown at times until hindsight shows magnificent wisdom has worked through us. As Pathligher said, we remember we need more of Jesus and to take on his yoke and learning from Him. I can do that anywhere. Unfortunately, some believers do not see that clearly and become quite discouraged in the process. That in itself is a task to approach. I certainly get distracted from that goal all the time.
If you are somewhere with an assembly and feel you must leave where you are, please do so with prayer for the guidance of God. Remember, there is always a lot of milk being needed by some while others are ready for the meat of it all. We must find a way to be part of the weak and the strong and not judge ourselves higher than we should. We are all lacking but for Christ.
While I find strength in my fellow believers and encouragement to keep on keeping on, sometimes I do fail in miserable ways. In time, I am always picked up again with strength I cannot generate myself. I find the most strength when my “institution” is my daily life and my “religion” is the basis of it. When I am realizing the love given me and living that as best I can, I am still a poor reflection of Jesus but know where I stand. I cannot desert my weaker believers any more than stronger ones have not deserted me. Mentally, the earthly brand name institution is only a part of my relationship with the Father but it is an important one, in general reflecting my ingrained belief structure. Yet, more important to me is daily life among others …I only wish more believers were in that space. As it is, I am fortunate to find a few believers everywhere when brand name is discounted and following Christ is the key. I really need other believers in my life and that is not handed to me by an institution but for the relationships formed in joined hearts. There is not a program or 5 year plan which will give me guaranteed relationships with others through love. That comes from…well, answer that for yourself.
Ok, I have rambled on for a while. My next post will likely be more useful since what I intend to do is not speak and speak but to answer the questions Dale presented to start section 2, all from my point of view. We do, regardless of what we may say and wish, we do live as we do right now and I live with the congregation of which I am a member. Sure, I want change. Sure, I do not want my congregation trapped in its own way when that may be much more pleasing to God if altered. Then again, I am a single member of that group of about 300 folks. Most actions by my wife and by me which reflect Christ are not at a building and generally not on Sunday, though we are there when the doors open most of the time. I take part in the service and she teaches a kids Sunday morning class.
I don't think we need to create anything new. I think what we need to do is re-think how we THINK about "church," giving freedom to those in the institution as well as those without....
I look forward to your next post.
Is the church both of them? Yes, it is. Certainly the church is the membership of the kingdom established by Christ, yet this membership is scattered. Where believers come to each other to worship, encourage, share communion, pray and otherwise support local families of believers, this becomes an institution joined and held together with the threads of a common belief.
Is the organizing of a people an automatic institution as we know it? I would call it an organization, the institutional part comes from the basis of and reasons for the organization in the first part.
Have we historically been thinking of the “offices” “format,” “government,” “membership” qualities of the institution in the right way (do we automatically use the verses to justify the positions and formats we have at our “church”?). To me, the assembly of believers becomes an organization. Then knowing that leadership by responsible and spiritual members is needed for growth and protection of our belief, we look for people to fill those positions of leadership. I see elders (or bishops) as what was to be appointed from the members of the local assembly as servant leaders. Beneath them were workers, organizers and get it done folks called deacons. I do not see the pastor or pulpit minister assuming the role of church leader and guardian in scriptural references. Yet, I am not saying such is an illicit role by any means. So, yes, the format of government is considered because it is needed for the nurturing and protection of the belief which caused the assembly in the first place.
Do we identify ourselves more closely with the people or the institution? I personally identify more closely with the people, yet the institution is important to me even with the many flaws and failings I see it demonstrate. Unfortunately, once in a while while on the road and stopping at a brand name church which is familiar and generally comfortable, I will find such unfriendliness that the institution is barely all left to identify with! Other times, hearts pour out with love for the visitor and the institution takes a definite back role when among such believers.
Do we identify ourselves along denominational lines and part of a pastor’s flock OR do we more automatically identify ourselves with all Jesus followers in our town? I do identify myself with my brand name but not with a “sign” announcing the brand. With Christians, I identify with Christians, regardless of brand. They need not fear my presence even if we do disagree on some points and we each may think the other flat out wrong in some areas of belief. The substance is generally sharing of the love of Christ with in us and that is what makes it work.
Does the "way we've always done it" cloud our reading of Scripture for what it really says? This used to be an automatic and clouded interpretation and application were thought crystal clear from the throne of God. It is spending much time with believers of all sorts of brand names that I have opened this heart and they have opened theirs in the best cases. We all see value in the other and see how tradition and maintenance of a brand name has directed thought beyond scriptural honesty.
Is there a new way to think about this distinction between people and institution we haven’t thought of before? There must be but it cannot be a watered down gospel meant to please all and take in all tradition. Truth must be the core…so that is the cincher and I honestly cannot give and answer. If anything, the distinction is the fact that the institution has come from the believers as a needed part of association, empowering wit the combined joints, fingers, tendons, bones and muscle of many talents in unity…The institution should be a reflection of the believers and therefore a reflection of the Bride of Christ, not believers simply being a reflection of a particular institution.
And, most importantly, are we in a posture of humility, willing to change should we need to? I sure hope I am. As for others, I cannot say. Humility can take a back seat unjustly when the institution is challenged severely. Need I say exercising this humility is difficult if we perceive a threat to our habitual ways?
There are some answers from me. Dale, thanks for the opportunity.
ALthough I think Ghandi's statement is grotesquely over-quoted, I think it is good to keep in mind that we need to be the change we want to see. I struggle with this because its not about being humble for me but about being confident that the change I want to see is legitimate. "I" want it, but does God?
"We need to rethink the way we THINK about the church," you commented. Do you think that rethinking should start at the distinction between people and institution? Should we ask what the church should look like first, or do we need to find a deeper question?
I guess, I'm thinking of looking at the church more as organism. You ask with Soulation, "What does it mean to be appropriately human?" Can we ask the same about the church? And would the answers be prior (primordial) to the look or organization of it (people or institution)?
Just challenge us to possibly even go one step backwards if its even possible.
The organism I desire is one of God, made from the believers and dependant on the contribution spiritualy of each. I believe it quite possible if we do somehow reach the church we want, or find the one closest to what seems right, we will see fewer members who now grace the pews. Yet, that will be the time to bring in new members, seeking the lost as is commanded.
We say, give it over to God, follow His Spirit..now, how do we know that is happening? I pray and have faith guidance is there...
I just read a book called "Who Stole My Church" by Gordon MacDonald. It is a unique story that was written by a New England Pastor about the changes that a local church body is going through and how the generational gap makes for difficulty in understanding and communication. It is strictly fiction, but the story is based on difficulties and realities faced by MacDonald. Fast, easy read, but gives great insight into these very questions that are being asked by us here. What is the church exactly and what does it mean to be a part of it? And WHY the HECK do we do some of the things the way we do!? :) I really appreciate your thoughts!
Nathan
MacDonald's book sounds interesting. He's a seasoned soul!
Maybe this is too radical, but I also think two or three gathered together to accomplish something for Jesus or to pray in Jesus's name is the "church" in, perhaps, a looser sense of the term. I derive much more satisfaction in working with my Christian school colleagues in the trenches each day than I do when sitting in a church service or attending Bible study. My Christian school is not a church, but we do worship together twice a week, take care of each other when members are hurt, minister together toward a common goal. We are not perfect here by any stretch, but there is more of a sense of the Acts-like church here than in the building each of us goes to on Sunday.
I'm sure others have said it, but my main problem with the church is the lack of intellect. The Second Great Awakening did damage that way, I think, in that it seems it was primarily an emotive movement. I am tired of pastors relying mainly on emotion to reach me. In my case, I've been manipulated so many times in my early youth that I am innured to emotion-only pleas. The best sermons that move me emotionally are those that reveal something of Jesus I never knew intellectually. I find I am full of questions no one ever really stands in the pulpit and answers. Where we attend, the pastor picks an important topic and then plugs in the Bible verses he needs to prove his point. Our pastor is not heretical, but in terms of getting fed each Sunday, that's about all I can say for him. I find things are much more effective when someone like Alistair Beg starts with the scripture and pulls from the scripture what it means. I don't expect all preachers to be like Alistair Beg, but I do wish more pastors would spend more time explaining the odd things of scripture to us. I.e. Jesus is hungry one morning, walking by a fig tree, and when He sees it has no fruit, He curses the thing that it might never produce fruit ever again. I get the fact that He uses it as an example of what happens inwardly to Christians who never produce fruit, but it still seems to me like He displays a bit of temper just because He's hungry. 2. In judging the Pharisees earlier in Matthew, he says Sodom and Gomarrah (sp) will sit in judgment on them someday. I get that. But then He starts talking about a demon possessed man who gets cleansed, has his insides put in order, and then the demon returns, finds it that way, and brings seven more companions with it to make things even worse. So what is the link there? And, moving outward from that, what about demon possession in general? Was that sort of thing common back then? Or was demon possession the term they had for things science has now given us new lingo for?
I want things explained to me in context first. But I have been forced, since the pastors aren't doing it, to try to find references to figure this stuff out for myself. I have even toyed with the idea of going to seminary, as the time it takes to really understand scripture well is enormous, and I want to understand.
I'm sorry this is so long. It's just that I have been wrestling with what the church is and isn't for about 10 years.
I have always liked your thinking. It is very refreshing to be reminded that I am not alone in my thinking.
I have recently been reflecting a lot on the drama of creation-fall-redemption. I am starting to believe that when we do not think through this plot line, we end up with fragmented understandings of various things like the church, culture, our purpose, being human, etc... (you know all of this, so I apologize if it sounds like I am teaching.)
One way to think of creation is simply as the way all things were meant to be. It is what we have been longing for ever since the fall, which can be described as a departure from the way things were meant to be. And of course redemption is simply the restoration to the way all things were meant to be. I love how Cornelius Plantinga describes 'shalom' as wholeness, flourishing, or ultimately the way all things were meant to be. He also mentions that the New Testament authors use the phrase 'kingdom of God' as virtually synonymous with 'shalom'.
So in light of these thoughts and if you do not mind me using your wonderfully coined phrase, the church simply is a group of people who are becoming appropriately human (our original and ultimate purpose) and also telling others that there is a way to become appropriately human (the Great Commission). Let me know your thoughts.
Eric Peterson
Yes, I agree with you: our telos is to be "appropriately human," and that entails a lot of stuff. And we are inviting others into this, both believers and non-believers in the Messiah. Our commission isn't merely to the "lost," for Jesus told us to make disciples, which includes those who believe.
As for the plot line of Creation-Fall-Redemption, there's a critical, yet telling, omission in that plot that makes up the bulk of the Bible. That we gloss over it certainly speaks to the framework we were brought up in as seeing the "church" as a completely "new" Gentile concept as God has replaced or turned his back on the Jewish people.
However, the plot line is more Creation-Fall-the Jewish nation as a revelatory people and light to the nations-Redemption-etc. God wants to reconcile the world through to himself, through himself as a Jew and part of that heritage and lens.
That said, check out part 3 on this discussion here: http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-ex... And throw some thoughts down as you process it.
My big concern for the "church" today is to remember its identity, to cease identifying itself as the organization on the corner, but as a people. This would not only be, on my view, historically and biblically accurate, but we would find fewer casualties who have walked away from "church" and so believe they walked away from "God."
You definitely do not have to convince me that we have in a certain sense omitted a major part of redemptive history by not keeping the church in the proper context of God’s unfolding plan. I have often reflected on how the Church does not understand its Jewish roots. You will get nothing but sympathetic agreement on that issue from me. That said; I apologize for my lack of clarity. I probably should have spelled out more what I meant.
First, when I, at the risk of oversimplifying, said that the church is a group of people becoming appropriately human who are sharing with others that there is a way of becoming appropriately human, I definitely did not mean to restrict the Great Commission to just the lost. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who live fragmented lives because they do not know what their true end is or how discipleship is a sure means to it.
Second, when I speak of the plot line of creation-fall-redemption, I am not intending to omit Israel’s proper place in it. Maybe you understood me as talking of redemption simply as Christ’s atonement, but I was intending redemption to be understood much broader than that. Maybe I should use a different word like ‘restoration’ or even ‘re-creation’ in order to avoid this confusion. What I am thinking of as redemption is seen very soon after the fall (for instance God curses the ground instead of cursing Adam and Eve), and especially as the narrator develops the establishment of a covenant people, who would be a blessing to all nations. So I am in agreement with your qualification, but I was assuming it in my understanding of the plot line.
Yes, I did read part three. It is good stuff. Like I said before I like the way that you are thinking on this. I like that you are not afraid to raise hard questions that some might find as controversial. And yes I very much agree with you that the church needs to focus on identifying itself as people rather than programs or an organization.
Randi and I recently experienced this when we were visiting a church here. We were running late (as we always are because we have two young kids). It was a more traditional denomination. We walked in and sat down; I was holding Ezra in his car seat and so Randi was holding my coffee. Shortly after we sat down, the usher approached Randi and without saying a word pointed at the coffee in her hand and shook his finger saying no. Randi and I both felt uncomfortable and alienated the whole service. It clearly indicated that the program and the building is more important than the people.
Keep writing Dale; we need more thinkers like you.
Eric
I like your suggestion on re-explaining the general plot line... creation, fall, re-creation. Sounds fresher and more interesting, as if there are surprised packed into that. Many Christians do not think of re-creation. They think the Christian story is "get me the hell off this planet!" But such a disembodied view of human purpose is, as you know, is hardly found in the Christian story. We'd rather run away than re-create.
Thanks for the encouragement and insights, Eric!