-
Website
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-exactly-is-church-part-3-way.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The other issue is how we identify ourselves in God's story. Are we randomly floating about or are we rooted in the Jewish people and their promises? It is unfortunate how often we distance ourselves from Jewish ideas and practice, setting ourselves us as a gentile authority....
I have to start with the challenge first, though, which is this: please understand that the NT...Jesus and His very disciples...affirms that the NT church is something that was new and its beginning was Pentecost. Furthermore, when the term, ekklesia or church, was used after Pentecost it came to be a specialized term. Much like "Sabbaoth" was used in general from the conclusion of creation up to the release of Israel of Egypt, but after that God used it to denote a NEW event he expected them to observe, though it still had a general meaning.
In the same way, 'church' was used in general for anything and specific for the house of Israel but in Acts, it started to change into a specialized term.
Notice first that Jesus in Matthew 16:18 says that he will build his church...in the future tense showing that it had not started yet. It was a new thing that He planned on doing with the coming of the Holy Spirit as people placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah. The Holy spirit neither dwelt in man nor did people trust Jesus for Salvation in the OT. Abraham and David were justified by faith in God's promises, but there was not revelation of the Messiah Jesus yet.
That's why Peter's confession of Jesus in Matt. 18 is significant...he confessed Jesus as "The Christ the Son of the Living God...and it is upon THIS rock (confession of Peter) that Jesus said He would (in the future) build His church.
We know that future event was Pentecost because of 3 things: 1.) this is where people were first indwelled by the Holy Spirit as a result of Jews placing faith in Jesus for salvation. Acts 2:21 In Acts 8 we read that the same thing repeated itself at a "Gentile Pentecost." When Peter defended himself for preaching to the Gentiles he told others that the Holy Ghost fell on them, "as on us at the beginning" ...the word "beginning" referring to the start of the Church. 3.) Ephesians 3:9-10 shows that the mystery of the church was hid in God alone in the OT but NOW made known in the NT.
Ok, the agreement that I have with you is in regards to denominations. The NT church was made up of localized assemblies of born again believers that were self-governing under the Lordship/Headship of Christ. Although, it is clear that the pastor was the leader of the church, it is also seen that the church itself ran by congregational rule and not by a denominational board. After the Jews were persecuted out of Jerusalem and Paul wrote the pastoral epistles, the Jewish council of Acts 15 dwindled out of use being a 'carry over' from the old Jewish system of govt. The church government was characterized by electing their own pastors and voting by raising their hands (cheirotoneo trans. choose or chosen in 2 Cor. 8:19)
I'm sorry that I don't have time to develop things more nor will I have much time to invest in the discussion but if you want to know more I suggest reading 'There Really is a Difference' by Renald Showers and also read the article 'Questions about the Home Church Movement by following this link http://www.wayoflife.org/files/c886138a806d3dad...
You write:
I have to start with the challenge first, though, which is this: please understand that the NT...Jesus and His very disciples...affirms that the NT church is something that was new and its beginning was Pentecost.
I write: No doubt something new was happening... and it happened on a Jewish holiday, no less. The new thing was a unique way the Spirit was poured out on the people... starting with the Jewish people in Israel. Yes, the Gentiles received the spirit too, but Pentecost was Jewish through and through. Just as God was doing something new with the Jews by entering Sinai and doing something new by entering the Promised Land and doing something new by inserting himself into the world, so he was doing something new at Pentecost. The story and it's trajectory did not change. It's staring us in the face. I'd have to be convinced by a large picture that Pentecost was inconsistent with God's work among the Jews as his revelatory people.
You write:Furthermore, when the term, ekklesia or church, was used after Pentecost it came to be a specialized term.
I write: This would have to be shown clearly. For the early church, a gathering on Sunday was usually before and after work, usually the day after the Sabbath that most celebrated (since the early church consisted of Jews and proselytes). See Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple, for new developments on the Jewish history of the early church.
You write: Notice first that Jesus in Matthew 16:18 says that he will build his church...in the future tense showing that it had not started yet. It was a new thing that He planned on doing with the coming of the Holy Spirit as people placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah.
I write: First, let me say that I believe his use of "ekklesia" is the same in chapter 16 as chapter 18. They had an idea of "ekklesia" that was obvious to his hearers.
Of course it was something new, but not non-Jewish. The Messiah hasn't yet come. Things were shifting. A future for "church" doesn't change the meaning of church. In Matthew 16, he's referring to the House of Israel under Jehovah's Messiah. Previously, it was the House of Israel under Jehovah.
Again, it's a furtherance of the same story with new features, not a new story.
You write: The Holy spirit neither dwelt in man nor did people trust Jesus for Salvation in the OT.
I write: I was always taught this, from Christian school to Christian college... but I don't accept it anymore. Ex 31:3... the first man "filled" with the Spirit was an artist. And while it may be a different kind of filling than that of Pentacost with Messiah's rulership, the Spirit still filled people. God was with his people.
You write: Abraham and David were justified by faith in God's promises, but there was not revelation of the Messiah Jesus yet.
I write: Absolutely. They were justified because they believed in the God of Israel. This same God is also our Messiah. Everyone is justified by faith in the God of Israel. Further revelation; same salvation. We have to think outside our paradigm and see that the same evidence may actually point to a different story than our protestant construct.
You write: That's why Peter's confession of Jesus in Matt. 18 is significant...he confessed Jesus as "The Christ the Son of the Living God...and it is upon THIS rock (confession of Peter) that Jesus said He would (in the future) build His church.
I write: Now this is one place I can clearly say another look at that verse will reveal the bias. How on earth can Jesus build his church on a confession? Our creed does not make a people.
Peter's statement was clearly neither Catholic (the "rock" is the church) nor typical Protestant (the "rock" is the confession). The "rock" is Jesus the Messiah. We can't miss it. It is upon the Messiah that the Messiah will build his church. He's the only one capable of it.
We have to get this straight if we're going to progress into understanding of our identity of the people of God. The church is not built on our confessions but on the Jesus the Messiah. That's what Peter profoundly pointed out! Jesus is the Messiah! And Jesus furthered it that the House of Israel will be built on him. This is the long-standing promise throughout the prophets.
You write: Ephesians 3:9-10 shows that the mystery of the church was hid in God alone in the OT but NOW made known in the NT.
I write: Read verse verse 6 in that chapter. The mystery is quite clear: That gentiles will be INCLUDED with the Jews, not starting something new. This House of Israel under Messiah will shine to the nations, just as has always been the work and the plan. The mystery is not that the gentiles are starting a new movement and that the Jews are left in the dust.
I'm fascinated that most of the Scripture you've quoted in your post actually support what I'm talking about, if you take a second look at them and allow the boundaries of your paradigm to melt a bit. I only say this because this has been a study of mine the last few years and it too a while for me to be less rigid with my own paradigm.
You write: I suggest reading 'There Really is a Difference' by Renald Showers and also read the article 'Questions about the Home Church Movement by following this link http://www.wayoflife.org/files/c886138a806d3dad...
I write: Thanks for the link, Rodney, I'll check it out. And thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your insights though I think there's more going on in the Scriptures than the way we've always thought of "church". I also have a book to recommend if you want more perspective.
Thanks for your acknowlegments. I have always known you to be a good man and a fair one as well. I've always admired your analytical thinking skills. I also want to be clear that I am not taking an offended/defensive posture in my postings. I do have some problems with your response to my 'broad stroke' responses (at it has been actually quite accuratly characterized.) But, I am to busy to go through them at this moment. God bless
There is always room to grow and have our views tested: to be confirmed or switched as we grow.
That is no problem that you are too busy. I'm quite busy too, but since this is my blog, I've gotta keep it hopping! :)
With that said, I need to comment on a few things with the time I have.
First, it keeps coming up that the Gentile church somehow replaces the Jewish nation of Israel and that is just simply not our view from Scripture and not what Scripture teaches. Clearly the idea that the Gospel is to the Jew FIRST and then ALSO to the Greek is the cornerstone of NT thinking. The fact that the church is historically Gentile is a testimony of the Jews, by in large, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah and the Apostles, henceforth going to the Gentiles.
Second, It is not 'replacement' theology: it is 'fulfillment' theology in that the Gospel of the Death, Burial, Resurrection of Jesus fulfilled all of the ceremonial law of the Jews making it unecessary after Pentecost (being the final fulfillment) rendering them no longer necessary to picture what Jesus fulfilled because He had, well, fulfilled them.
The Greek word used when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it is 'plarao' mean to 'fill up.' He 'satisfied' the just demands of the law making it no longer necessary to be used as a picture of what Jesus came to accomplish in His life. I know you will argue this; but this is true OT/NT Biblical thinking in that it is based on unbiased Biblical hermeneutics using dispensationalism as one of the many principles of correct, unbiased interpretation.
Rreading your posting tends to tell me that you are not a dispensationalist. Correct me if I am wrong, please. OF course, if you don't then the arguments between us will be never-ending.
Third, If you re-reread the Ephesians 3 passage together with the overall understanding that the church started at Pentecost WITH the Jews and that it then spread to the Samaritans and finally to the ends of the earth (Gentile nations) like Jesus stated in Acts 1:8) then you will see that Eph 3 is talking about something that was never in history a part of God's plan for the Gentiles in that they are made ONE with the Jews as the Body of Christ NEITHER no longer having any nationality...in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, bond or free, etc (Gal 3:28). This is totally different than the Gentiles who wanted to be a part of God's covenant in the OT because, as you know, they were required to actually become "Jewish." Whereas in the New Covenant (NT) we are all made ONE in Christ with the center wall of partition being broken down (Eph.2:14)
In reading your posting, Dale, it seems to me that that is why you must ‘down play’ Paul’s writing so much and actually uphold the idea that we need to be Jewish proselytes in some way. This simply flies in the face of all Christ did in starting his church and calls part of the NT basically mistakenly being added to the Bible! But, I could be wrong.
Fourth, the church was introduced by Christ to his disciples in Matthew 16 as something He will do in the future. Thus, in Matthew 18 he would not have to re-introduce it as a future thought again...he would just talk about it with those same disciples who were in training to be those in whom Christ would use to start the Church in Acts 2. To say that Matthew 18 talks about the church as being already established is unfair to the text. We must stick to the natural and normal reading.
Fifth, I have to say that I am a little surprised that you interpreted what I said about Peter's confession as to mean "Church creed" when I clearly meant it as Peter's confession being necessary for SALVATION which is the means in which Christ would build his church. People placing their faith in Christ as God and Savior (Romans 10:9) is the means to be SAVED thus added to the Body of Christ which IS the church (Eph 1:22-23) is what I meant and is what the passage means in Matthew 16. I totally agree that Jesus is the rock on which the church shall stand: but neither meaning can be separated here. Christ will build His church on Himself, but the church will be built by 'living stones' (1Ptr 2:5) or those who put there faith in Him for salvation. I hope that this is clear that I am not saying that a church creed is what Jesus meant here but Peter confessing Christ is the means by which the church will be built and it will and has been built upon Christ.
Sorry for the length of this...shalom!
First, I don't think the Jews rejected Jesus and the Apostles. Is there a clear verse on that? I do think SOME Jews rejected Jesus, as did some Gentiles. The fact that the Apostles were Jewish is kind of ironic to say that the Jews rejected them. In addition, many Jews received Jesus when he was alive, especially in Galilee. To discount all of them because of the rabble loyal to the High Priest in Jerusalem is an overstatement. I do think it's been a long-standing tradition to think the Jews rejected Jesus and so God turned to the Gentiles. In reality, the Jews received him and took the news of Jesus to the Gentiles. They were to be a light to the nations. This fits with Jewish through all the way back to the beginning.
I will grant that it appears to be a remnant of Jews, but it was still a Jewish. And the early church was littered with Jews and Gentiles who followed the God of Israel. These were the Gentiles Paul mostly went to. In fact, the only pure Gentile audience we have record that Paul spoke to was Mars Hill. And there we see no mention of the Cross or other Temple-talk like redemption, etc.
Second, I do think Jesus filled up the requirements of the law. But Hebrews seems to explain that for the Jews very well: Jesus is now the High Priest. Jesus sacrifice filled up all sacrfices--no more need for those. I think the loss of the Temple was also a possible filling up. But I don't see Jesus filling up the entire Torah. We don't see from Paul nor Peter nor any others an urgency for their hearers to give up Torah. Even in Acts 15, the apostles say the Gentiles are not required to keep Torah but for a short list that revolves around idolatry. What is curious in that passage is they don't say Torah is abolished... they only say it isn't for the Gentiles. Imagine the scene: a group of Jewish leaders using their authority to say the Gentiles do not need to follow most of Torah. Interesting that this is a Jewish authority governing the Gentile "church." So in that regard, even the Apostles thought Torah was important. I cannot ignore this kind of evidence as curious and telling. Something else is creeping through the text.
Aside: Dispensationalism... I saw under the professor who invented "progressive dispensationalism" and was trained in it. But I don't know what to call myself anymore. Every system of thought overlayed on Scripture needs to do some gymnastics to explain everything in the system. So what I'm trying to do is piece together a big picture with small pictures rather than start with a system that some men have derived and just go with it. So, you're right, we'll likely end in different places because we use a different system... :)
Third, I reread Eph 3. I see verse 6 pretty clearly that the Gentiles are now included with Israel. Israel is still prior. And I don't think Gal 3:28 says that there is no more nationality (more on this in a moment). There is oneness, and Romans 9-11 (a Pauline book) speaks to how this is so. But the vine is still Israel and the Gentiles are grafted in and become heirs of the promise. Unless we superimpose a "system" over Romans 9-11, the plain and natural reading of the text seems to say this is so.
I absolutely agree that Gentiles being included in this fashion is newly revealed. Jesus made it easy for Gentiles to be included in Israel and heirs of her promises. This is good news indeed. But I still don't think the "church" is new, since I think the "church" as a concept started with the House of Israel as God dwelt among the people... and through Jesus, Gentiles are now part of the House of Israel too. The prophets spoke to this as well, never assuming Jewish identity and significance would diminish.
Fourth, I am with you on the natural reading. And I see what you are saying. But the natural reading for me is that Jesus will build the House of Israel upon him. This is the new thing. Messiah's coming is the new thing. A group of believers among whom God dwells is not a new thing. Gentiles being fully included in that, and not just proselytes, is a new thing. But the group is not. It may take certain shapes in the host culture where it finds itself, just as it took a different shape during the captivity and Disapora. But the same concepts and structures are there. We cannot overlook that even Jesus when to the synagogue (which is sometimes used interchangeably for "ekklesia" in the Septuagent). The synagogue was a gathering much like the NT "church" where they had preaching, teaching, public reading of Scripture, collections for orphans, etc. That this NT "church" was entirely new misses a bit of history, on my view.
Another aside: thanks for letting me know I'm giving the impression of downplaying Paul. By no means. I believe Paul is writing and speaking as a Jew as well, helping the Gentiles know what it means to be a people of God through the Jewish Messiah. Paul is very important to understand what this all means to me, as a Gentiles. I also don't want to downplay Hebrews, James, and Peter, which are written to Jews. I believe Hebrews 8 is actually telling the Jews that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are now part of Torah as well (see my comment to Philip). So the NT is actually given full status by the writer of Hebrews as the Jews are being taught how Jesus fits within their paradigm as well. The advent of Jesus shifted everything for everyone, but it didn't erase the old. Jesus did what his people could not... A Jew walking in Torah. While the Torah is law of freedom (see James), the Torah could not give life. Only Jesus could. This is quite clear in Paul.
Fifth, I'm sorry if I was being semantic. I do believe the point is often missed with Peter confession that Jesus the Messiah is the rock on which the believing community is built. Yes, a confession is important for this believing community. But Jesus didn't say "these" rocks I will build by church upon, but "this" rock... the Rock of his Messiahship. Confessions are important too, but the thing revealed by the Father to a flesh and blood Peter was that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)!! That is worth parking on for a while.
I note your "living stones" in Peter. Absolutely. But Peter is a Jewish book. In fact, Peter quotes the prophet of Torah three times and the Psalmist of Torah once. Now in the chapter you allude to, go down to verse 9. Here we see again an affirming of Jewishness, even as a "holy nation". Here we see nationality isn't actually eradicated with a natural reading of the text. In fact that whole verse is very telling: a chosen people, a royal priesthood. These are the Jews. This is their identity all through the OT. This isn't some sort of Calvinist sleight of hand, but a naming of the Jewish people to remember their chosenness. And the end of the verse is Israel's classic metaphor of light. "Out of darkness into his wonderful light." Remember Ps 27 (and many other places) where the God of Israel is the light. His Jewish Messiah is the light, calling the Jews to be all they were created to be. So the "living stones" in Peter are Jewish believers in the Jewish Messiah; he's not specifically referencing Gentiles here, from what I can tell.
No need to apologize for length. Makes it more fun! ;) May your day be filled with peace.
And as far as changing the name of the building to community center, I think we miss the point and ignore history. We don't call these buildings "church" in a historic vacuum. It is a church building because that is where a local group of believers (i.e. the church) meet, as we're instructed to meet in Scripture, to exercise the gifts of teaching, service, etc. Does that mean we don't continue to utilize these gifts outside the building? Of course not. But one would be in a mighty lonely camp (among "scholars") if he/she is advocating the elimination of a "formal and structured" church, outside of those few weak and old-fashioned Christians who want to cling to their community center.
As for the other positions in the "church," it isn't just the OT where we see this motifs (elders, communion-passover, discipline, etc) but we also see these translated into synagogues during the captivity and Diaspora where Jews tried to make sense of their faith in enemy territory. The synagogue was not an OT thing, but something that arose when Israel became scattered. This is an important historical point to the larger story.
Of course, if you do not consider history as vital to informing the context and assumptions of Scripture, then you and I approach the text differently. I think history is vital to the Scripture since it was written historically by a historical people and not just dropped as laws out of heaven (as some other Holy Books often read).
I actually don't think I'M changing the name of "church" to community center. Right now in my understanding, this is what it is. And it's similar to what the synagogue was used for historically: public reading of Scripture, preaching/teaching, providing for the poor, widows, orphans, community gatherings, etc. And I firmly agree these buildings are not in a historical vacuum. We have lots of history surrounding these "centers." But if our history only goes back to the Reformation, our history is dwarfed. And if it only goes back to Constantine, our history is larger but still not large enough. We have to keep going back and back again on what everything is built on...
I've struggled with understanding Paul's word to Timothy when he says the "church is the pillar and ground of the truth." When I studied Catholicism, this was a key verse to show the magisterium, in apostolic succession, is the authority of truth. But I've realized that this was a re-writing of Scripture when they believed they replaced the Jews. I've since realized the "church" is the House of Israel. And upon the House of Israel, who are the light to the nations, that the truth is grounded. Israel holds it up as a pillar. Romans 2:3 says the Jews are the bearers of the revelation of Scripture. The Jews existed before Torah existed. It was penned by them. The NT was also penned by the Jews (Luke being a questionable objection, but he was certainly a Jewish prosylite at least). The Jews shine the light of God. Jesus, the Word, also holds up the truth because he's qualifeid a Jew (an ethnicity God required of him). It is through the Jewish lens that we are to understand the God of Israel and this God's promises to the world.
Today's church does not precede the Scripture and so cannot be it's pillar and ground. This is another reason why I think the view that Rodney' represents, though popular, is generally wrong on this church concept. If the church is a new entity, why do the writers need Israel on which to stand this new entity and give it sense?
I certainly don't think someone who goes to a community center to worship is "old fashioned." I think there is freedom in how and where we gather. I just think what I'm proposing is "older-fashioned."
The camp of scholars is growing both for the house-church as well as relearning our Jewish understanding of the New Testament. At the very least, I hope humility makes us open to it.
Also, we can both find scholars to support our positions, so that card won't work. My goal in posting comments is to "balance" your presuppositions. Of course if readers buy your arguments, fine. I just don't happen to agree with your views of the church and wanted to express that . . . not as an argument with you, but as another point of view for the readers.
And let me respond to just one of your statements about Timothy not being a pastor. I'll explain this with an example. If I write a letter to a friend of mine who is a musician and you intercept the letter and read it, you may never read the word "musician", but you may gather from the letter that my friend is a musician by the use of my language related to this field. In the same way, the letters to Timothy are full of instruction to someone who is in a leadership position in the church. If he is not in a leadership position in the church, then he would have no authority to carry out the instructions. And the leadership provided for in the NT is elders. So Timothy was an elder in the church. And if an elder, then seemingly one gifted in teaching (because he is instructed to teach). And the elder that is gifted in teaching is most commonly referred to as a pastor.
Anyway, my comments are already too long for this type of forum.
On presupposition, you are right in saying that just because I grew up with something doesn't make it right or wrong. That genetic fallacy would be awful I grew up with many good and poor things. Weeding out what is good and what isn't is difficult. I'm pretty sure, at this point, that my search for truth and re-evaluating "church" is not an emotionally motivated one. I'm just putting pieces together of a very large puzzle.
And while, yes, we can find scholars on every side, I'm not quoting a lot of scholars. I've giving perspective in more essay fashion on another way to read the text and make sense of the text.
Just like with every theory, when evidence doesn't fit the theory you can either ignore the evidence or change the theory. I'm presenting evidence that is usually shoveled aside based on some historical assumptions we import to the text, namely supersessionism and how God has always dwelled among people, not organizations. The House of Israel was considered the habitation of God. And while we all have our "assumptions," we can also break out of them through education and study (unless we're postmodern, then we don't even know how to entertain another point of view).
On Timothy, I do think he was a leader in his community. He was mentored and tutored by Paul, instruct a Messianic community in Ephesus who didn't have any Messianic scriptures and were deeply influenced by Artemis (see Acts 19). He had to teach, preach, and even instruct other elders. I don't doubt he was an elder for a season, though I also think he traveled a lot too. This eldering is a Jewish concept for a community, not just for a board of directors.
I don't think Timothy's authority came from an established "organization" on the corner. That "organization" gives "authority" is not a logical entailment, though we often see it. Timothy's authority came from Paul and his training gave him a voice. And I think he served the whole community, not just one select gathering. I get all that from the text.
I agree we are not looking for the word "pastor." But what I see Timothy doing is more influential and more community-focused than being in an organization. Today's "pastors" are not like this. Today's "pastors" are usually the only teachers, set their arbitrary "vision" for the church, have a pool of staff appointed and payed to serve him for all of his endless roles and expectations. If we start with today's version of "pastor" and overlay that on the text, we can figure out a way to justify it. But if we start with what the text is giving us, as limited as it is, then we would have a lot more freedom to let the Spirit move and shape community, decently and in order. We'd have less denominational tension and less suspicion of other believers which are derived from doctrinal and organizational identities rather than identity in the Messiah.
I appreciate the "balance," as would love my readers to garner various points of view on this. Since I'm challenging the status quo with some explanation (while many are challenging it with sheer frustration), I'm offering a way forward.
If you have a better way forward in light of all the issues we see in the modern church (as we know it), throw it into the fray!
This has a lot to do with the language of the New Testament though. I think in particular of Hebrews 8. I would be interested in your take on that given NIV calls the old covenant obsolete and the new one superior. I have my own thoughts that this take should be cross referenced with Matthew 5 concerning fulfillment of the law and not abolition. The new covenant is a completion of the old one, which its fulfillment has always been the coming of the Messiah.
I would mostly challenge your idea of the offices of the church. I agree with your skepticism of the bureaucratic nature of it, but I think these offices are still more concrete than you imply. Timothy was appointed by Paul, for instance, not the community. Even in the OT, God appointed the Levites not based on giftings either, but on Him setting them apart. It was a calling. God calls out His prophets as well. I am not trying to say that these offices are solely based on calling, but I do not think they are solely based on giftings and a community acknowledgment either. It is quite possibly a combination of these two.
Oh, also I think we need to make sure that the NT church would not have met in specific church buildings if they had the opportunity. They met in synagogues until chased out. And if they had the technology of cars and no persecution, they may have met outside of the home. Just a thought, I have no idea if they would or would not.
I think you are going the right direction though. I see a movement for many people back to this idea, including Savannah and I.
One your first point about Hebrews 8. I think you should notice verse 8 and the quotation from Jeremiah.
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah."
Whatever the "old" or "new" covenant talk we use in this passage, we cannot assume it is a covenant separate from what is stated in v8. It is with Israel. If there is no covenant through Israel, there is no covenant! This is what the prophets have said long before Jesus even came.
We see the new covenant begin with the Jewish disciples, spread to the Jewish assembly at Pentecost, and continued even with Paul who was revealing this Jewish covenant, as a Jew, for the Gentiles to be grafted in. Paul's primary audience of Gentiles were "God-fearing gentiles" who worshiped the God of Israel, believed Jewish ideas, but were outsiders. They were at synagogue regularly.
Look also how the word "new" and "old" are used. "New" is "kainos." This isn't a new entity, which would be "neos." "Kainos" is a refreshment of the previous. "New" man and "new" earth use the same word. We know we don't become a new person when we receive Jesus as the Messiah. We are renewed as the same person. You are still Philip. I'm still Dale.
It is unfortunate that the translators chose the word "obsolete" in verse 13 for the NIV. The word is "old," but it doesn't mean "outdated" or "obsolete" anymore than your grandparent's being old doesn't mean they no longer exist, though a younger generation comes along. They weren't replaced. The "soon disappearing" in v.13, also doesn't refer to ALL of Torah disappearing, but rather only the disappearing of what the Messiah made better: the context is the High Priest in Hebrews 8. Jesus the Messiah is now the High Priest. Likewise, we'll also find another vanishing part of Torah is the sacrifice. Jesus the Messiah becomes the Jewish sacrifice for the whole world.
Let me back up to verse 6 for a moment. The word "founded on" is also a mistranslation for the word "nenomothetetai" which literally means "to make law" in Greek. But since we're not dealing with Greek legislators but deeply Jewish concepts, we cannot take a generic reading of it. The book of Hebrews was written to Jews, so we have to look at their meaning as to what "law" they always refer to.
Every instance of the word "law" in Hebrews refers to Torah. David Stern, translator of the Jewish New Testament, says verse 6 literally means the New Testament was founded on Torah. In other words, Jesus the Messiah, his work and his word, are founded on Torah. In fact, Torah now has additions called the NT, or the "Messianic Scriptures." Some things are complete, like the High Priest and the sacrifice. But we can't say that Jesus coming made ALL of the Torah complete. It is clear that it hasn't. In the future, more will be complete with the New Earth and the reign of Jesus from Jerusalem (again, the Jews are at the center as minsters to the world and a light to the nations).
I believe some of this mistranslation is in part from assumptions about the text through erroneous historical understandings. That Hebrews and James are both explicitly written to Jews by Jews is telling when we try to cram it into our own context. We read James 1:18 in our assembly last night and it immediately jumped out to us how Jewish a book James is...
On elders, etc... Does it say Timothy was appointed as a pastor or elder to preside over a "church" alone? I need to see the text. In exploring, I haven't found it yet. I do know he's is instructed to the "public reading of Scripture, to preaching, and teaching." This is all synagogue talk. The synagogue (a generic word) often refers to a gathering in a place for the public reading of Scripture which evolved into other services offered by the Jewish community. What I don't necessarily see in the text is that there is a building that Timothy is meeting at nor a church institution as we know it today. I am not against a more formal assembly, but I don't want to read into the text what isn't there. It is too easy to press our own theology onto a text rather than take it for what it says first. My training in philosophy has really helped me part out what I'm "reading" from what I'm "reading into." Once we have the "reading" in literary context, then we move to historical context.
I'm not sure how people are to be appointed today. Paul tells Titus to appoint elders by his authority. So it seems Titus didn't have the authority to do it. And if Timothy is appointed, as you say, by Paul, who else has that kind of authority?
I think what we must always bear in mind is that Acts is a narrative, which means the rule of narrative implies the text is descriptive, not prescriptive. We have to do the harder work to find the prescription. Since I suspect there were Jewish elders in these cities already, Paul was intent on having Messianic Jewish elders present as well for people to appeal to and to tend to the "affairs" of the assembly, just as they did to the Jewish elders. When we find out how the Jews did it, we may be on our way to finding the precedent that Paul is appealing to.
The NT "church" may have indeed met at buildings. I'm not opposed to them. The synagogue would have been the same concept. But those are community centers too, just as I think today's "churches" are community centers. Yet the synagogue was not commanded as a locale in the Scripture from what I can tell. I think the assembly of believers have a choice to meet in the community center for the public reading of Scripture, for teaching, worship, and sharing. I'm only saying that we've done a larger disservice by making the building the "organization" that we call the "church," which is the House of Israel. In reality, I think there is more freedom than we allow.
I'm still working on a lot of this and need more input (Skarsaune was very helpful on what the NT church look like in its Jewishness). Right now, I'm just working to steer my canoe in the right direction based on what the Scripture seem to be shouting. In good conscience, I don't mind being an oddball in this if I'm tracking truth in these matters. The established "church" has been wrong before. ;)
I wasn't trying to infer that Timothy was a set pastor in our sense, but he obviously did hold an office such as an elder or so on to the church of Ephesus (whether this meant church in general or a specific amuont of people at a certain place is unsure on my part. I would like to see how the early church did meet in bigger cities like Ephesus). My main point was that the congregation was not the final say (common agreement on who is best gifted). Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus for the purpose of teaching and preaching as you said. He also gave him qualifications for certain organization within the church. Timothy was there much longer than to just fix the issues in the church as well (unless it took a decade or longer which seems to be the traditional length of his stay there). WHo has the right to appoint? I do not know, and I think the church does have a say. My main point was merely that I think there are more things at play than gifting alone.
I am curious as how your idea of a community center is much different than the idea (although not always practiced) that the church is the people, and the building is just a building that they all meet at. That's what I've always been taught, and it seems that is all you are saying really. You just wish we didn't call it church because of the confusion it can give. Is this safe to conclude?
As to boiling down my point, you're getting what I'm getting at:
1) Because the building has been considered the "church" for so long, we have caused a lot of confusion not only as to our purpose, but also our identity. If I thought my family identity was tied up with 2977 Deer Run South, where I grew up, my identity shifts from my family to the house.
2) Because of this identity problem, many followers of Jesus have felt disenfranchised for wanting to have deeper community out from under the often unintellectual and confused so-called authorities in many community centers. Many are educated people (like you and me) who can read the Scripture and for ourselves and reach smart conclusions with research. That is not to say many leaders at the community center are not great people nor superb servants. But if most leaders were servants, we wouldn't see the epidemic of exoduses from the community centers across the English speaking world.
3) If we saw ourselves as the People of God, we would depend less on the community center's staff for our structure and spiritual life and depend more on each other. Not to mention the way we've set up "leaders" in community centers makes them overworked, forced to be good at EVERYTHING, and often isolate them from everyday people. The amount of people who have left "pastorates" for said issues is staggering.
4) If we saw ourselves as the People of God, we'd see Jesus more as our Head and would give fewer impressions to the immature believer that the pastor is the head (which is a very common misconception and problem, even among those who have been in the community center for decades).
5) If we saw ourselves as the People of God, we'd learn to be identified with the Jewish people, to read the Scriptures as God asked us to (on my view), and to step into a larger story with huge prophetic implications.
6) I think we are to assemble, but we don't need a community center to do it in. It's a benefit, but not a requirement. The requirement puts a burden on the necks of the people, similar to how the Pharisees added to the laws to keep people from breaking the laws. So we've created unnecessary laws about "going to church" and caused people to believe that the community center IS the requirement. This has been the status quo for many centuries. Do I expect it to change? No. Do I think many community centers are dangerous and our identity shift scandalous? I'm growing to think so...
We have found our most authentic community has happened outside the organization, people we've met both in and outside community centers in town who come out of the woodwork and re-think what a body of disciples looks like.
I don't agree with this statement, but I can't even argue with it. You don't support it or tell us why we have to agree, just tell us we have to. That isn’t good! Like saying, we have to be okay with X as not being a bad thing. What if the action X is a bad thing by God's standard; in that case, it is a bad thing.
"Until we see Israel as the center people of the story, we will miss what is going on." Why? "Israel," as in the nation, has never been the people at the center of the story, God's people have. Your nationalistic Jewish bias is pretty prevalent throughout this entire piece.
It is hard for you to make this point, "The sad part is when people feel guilted into going to the community center every week to be part of “church.” When Hebrews tells us to not forsake the gathering together.... I don't think it is fair to accuse Scripture of “guilting” people into gathering at a community center.
Don’t you totally miss the irony of your conclusion statement?
"Are we willing to gather however the Spirit leads us in unity, engaging in spiritual growth, intelligent conversation, prayer, sharing, song, and teaching one another?"
That is church! You can call it what you want, community centers of the House of Israel, but I will just keep calling it church like the Bible does.
"Nationalistic Jewish bias"? Wow, I haven't been called that before. As a Gentile, I'm certainly not promoting myself by trying to examine what the Scripture is saying. If anything, I'm an enemy attestation. And Israel was clearly at the center of the story all through the Torah and in the Gospels. This is why the Son of God had to identify himself as Jew and the Jewish Messiah. In the end, he will sit on David's throne in Jerusalem. This is clearly Jewish.
As for "not being a bad thing," if you've noted the previous two parts and all the comments attached to them, you'd see that many are finding that leaving the "community center" that some call "church" is actually part of their spiritual health. That does not mean they are no longer with believers nor does it mean they refuse to be identified with God's people. It just means they are not longer identified with an organization. If you think it is a bad thing to identify yourself with the people of God against an organization that may twist that, then larger issues are looming here.
Hebrews does say "not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together." But it doesn't require a "community center" to assemble, does it? The text doesn't say so at all. And it is ironic that the verse you chose is from a letter written to the Jews. ;)
To say the Bible calls the community center a "church" is actually the issue we're all trying to figure out. To just announce it the way you have shows you haven't yet wrestled with it.
Thanks for posting.
While I don't think we "need" the community centers, per se, buildings of some kind do help with meeting together, whether in a living room, a gymnasium, a theater, or a structure that believers pooled their money together to build... But I'm being nitpicky. I really liked your post and am encouraged by it.
"Touchy subject" indeed! :)
Dale, I believe we need a corner to gather on. We find there in this mobile society a means to mobilize the gathers int the community if we so desire. We find a place to share if we dare do that in a service of "mixed brandnames"..we have not done that one! We find a place to see those we do not see often as we would like and very likely not as often as the early Christians might see each other in daily life. We live separated by miles and sometimes joined only by that corner. That does not and MUST not be defined to mean the corner is the Church. As we know, that definition has unfortunately been applied strongly already, so much so that going to "another corner" can be very uncomfortable.
I want my corner to be visible to all, visible and inviting without by that simple vision of what is seen. That is a wish and not a reality. I have to go out and be in the community, not on that hill or in that city but in all of it and the walk inbetween. Oh my.
I am trying to digest all you said in the very provoking intro to this part of the study and examination of church.
Some time will be needed to clearly absorb all your thoughts and let you know if I think some thoughts are all wet or on target. It is a different realm of thinking..from a different and perhaps more honest perspective. God Bless. Tom.
I grew up in the normative Jewish community and if there is one thing Judaism stresses, it’s history. We are rooted in a very long and complex history. The Church organizations of history have, in the vast majority, been places of anti-church, and anti-judaism. Even today, in the wonderful environment of Israel-friendly churches and new Vatican councils, for which I am genuinely grateful, Christian doctrine and self-understanding are still rooted in a theology that replaces Israel as the people of God. It will take a while for theory to catch up with good intention. I do see lots of hope, though, as we grapple with these difficult issues together, Jews and Gentiles.
For my generation of Jews, the Holocaust will always be the watershed and measuring line. So I ask (and have asked for a long time), Who or what was the church, the people of God, during the Holocaust? The organized Church became quickly Nazified, towing the line of the Party, revealing the anti-christ spirit that had inhabited it all along. Those who belonged to the Lord had only one option: to align themselves with the Jews. This story will repeat itself in history until we learn it.
This meant prison and death for many. For others, this allowed God the freedom to work in highly miraculous ways. Irena Sendler was able, as an 18 year old woman, to smuggle about 2000 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto under the nose of the Nazis. The whole town of Le Chambon, France became a hiding place for French Jews in the face of Nazi occupation under the leadership of one pastor. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Hol...
Many, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Count Helmuth James Von Moltke were executed. A question to ponder is: Where was Jesus was during the Holocaust? The Jewish artist Marc Chagall captured a deep and mysterious truth in his crucifixion paintings. Here are links to two of them.
http://www.uky.edu/~popkin/chagall.htm
http://www.geocities.com/art4sep/france/chagall...
This painting was done in 1938, the year of “Kristallnacht” the November riots that marked the beginning of the persecutions that became the Holocaust. Jesus is depicted as a Jew, wearing a traditional Jewish Prayer shawl around his loins as we see Jewish life being destroyed around him.
Rachel
I think you're on to something in general regarding the obsession we tend to have about churches and church attendance, but there are two things that make me wonder a bit. First, I get the feeling that the large percentage of people that 'give up on church' don't replace it with anything like what you would probably consider a good replacement. Instead they just sit around their house Sunday mornings (or whichever day a replacement might come) and become more and more isolated from the Church. I know things like the home church movement is growing, but I wonder if there are any numbers regarding how many people actually move from a traditional church setting to a replacement that actually encourages and helps them grow as Christians.
The second thing I wonder about is that one might easily suggest that whatever we replace the "community center" with is just that, a replacement. So instead of having a formal Sunday service we get something else that, sooner or later, will end up with the same (or very similar) types of problems at the current "community centers." Perhaps the problem just isn't with the concept behind "community centers" at all but instead with the fact that they are made up of people that don't regularly participate in them in the way that God desires. And of course, that wouldn't change just because the group got smaller and met more informally.
Let me respond to your two points.
First, no doubt some leave “church” and are not proactive nor take responsibility for their own spiritual health. At the same time, my experience tells me that many of these same people are not proactive nor take responsibility for their own spiritual health when they do attend the “church.”
Willow produced a study a couple of years back indicating that many leaving their “church” were people who were maturing. In other words, the community center, as they set it up, did not foster the growth that a lot of people were looking for.
Willow became an ‘entry-level’ community for ‘beginngers.’ The more mature were looking elsewhere. Where did they go? I’m unsure. I know believers who refuse to go to the community center. Some are growing and are well connected with other believers. Some are not.
Dallas Willard said the point of discipleship is so that you don’t need “church” anymore.
What I’m saying is that the community center can be set up however a group of local people of the larger church want to set it up. They can make the center more evangelistic or more teaching based. They can set it up as a homeless shelter or a university. *Requiring* Christians to attend these community centers, even the most flourishing ones, does not seem prudent. Not only does it seem outside the bounds of Scripture (as I read it) but also tweaks the identity of what the church is. It would be like confusing your family with your house. The house stays put. The family can even be scattered and still making familial influences in the world.
It only adds to the discouragement of the disillusioned when we say they are only the “church” when they attend the community center. There’s room for creative growth without having to put an extra yoke upon their backs.
Second, I totally agree with you that if we try to fabricate meeting spaces, similar problems will occur, regardless of size. However, I think identifying the “church” as the community center is an intrinsic identity issue. Until that is resolved, the other issues will be impeded by this larger obstacle. If I saw myself as member of a club, instead of a family, that will change the way I see myself in relation to the whole.
Apart from the intrinsic problem is the systemic issue. The system of the community center, when promising more than it can deliver (that is, promising to be the church rather than the community center where some of the church meets for various activities) undermines ourselves as an organic body. Most community centers required passive participation from its members. Other ways of gathering, including smaller groups, would at least allow more voices, more personal interaction, more growth. 1 Cor 14:26 speaks into this group participation. We know how much more powerful that can be than having one guy leading the whole pack with vision, teaching, personality, etc. Compare a Soulation Retreat to the average corner “church service” and you know the difference wherein I speak.
I'm also not convinced that what you previously (Post 2) deemed as systemic issues are actually inherent to the system. They may be widespread problems, but at this point I'm not convinced they are essentially tied to the way we go about church itself.
Three final, and only somewhat related, thoughts. First, I think Willard is only half right. If we see the church as being for the individuals themselves, then as one grows in Christ he should no longer 'need' the church. But, if the church is about the community of believers, then even if you or I get to the point that we don't need the church, there will be others around that need us. Instead of leaving the church because we no longer need it, we ought to stick around because other people need us. We can play this role outside the local church walls, but here again I'm not convinced there is a better way of doing it.
Second, I sometimes wonder if our beginning assumption is really just a false dichotomy. It's easy for me to act as if someone has the choice to only go to church or only participate in something like a house church, when in fact there is nothing preventing people from doing both. Perhaps we need these types of discussions to drive home that the church is not The Church and we should consider the ways in which the latter can operate outside the former. But that doesn't automatically mean we don't need the former (recall my 'prudential point' above).
Finally, are you familiar with 'Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion' by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck? I've not read it yet, but it seems relevant to this discussion.
Cheers,
I'm not sure the prudential argument is convincing to me, unless you mean by it we should not encourage an exodus from the community centers. I don't want to overshadow a larger truth of Scripture for pragmatics. If avoiding an exodus and encouraging people to only attend house churches is what you mean, then I'm in agreement with you. Like I've said previously, I may be in the minority, but I think the community center has some good roles to play in many lives. I just think that when we identify them as the "church" we're missing the larger story. And for those who are leaving the community center, as a paradigm shift, we have to ask why. If they are just apathetic humans who don't want to take responsibility for themselves, then that's a completely different issue than what I am raising here. That issue will involve other questions, like why does the community center draw apathetic people? Or, more poignantly, how does the community center create more apathetic people? While you may not be convinced by the systemic issues I've listed (which I largely garnered from the comments of others in the previous post for the sake of the discussion), something systemic in the status quo seems to be afoot.
As for Willard, I agree with your assessment. I think he's means they don't need the community center, which may serve a certain purpose, like the way an alcoholic may not need AA anymore because he's matured. I certainly don't think he's referring to not needing a community. And that leads me back to my point that I want to be careful not to equivocate on the word "church"... one is a people, the other is a community center organization set up by a few with a certain vision for a particular locale.
I have heard of DeYoung/Kluck's book... I haven't read it though. It may be helpful to the discussion, but the title alone seems a little adrift at what I'm getting at. I'm not against institutions (many are very helpful) nor against organized religion (as I think true religion is both experiential and propositional, like all good things in life). Yet I don't think the Insitution nor the Organized Religion is the church. The church, on my view is organized in some sense with doctrines that define it (which is what most mean today when they are getting away from "religion"), but the church is organized in a way different than what we normally think of it with paid staff leading the whole show.
I've often wondered what "unity" of the Spirit that Jesus was talking about. And I wonder if we manufacture that "unity" too often because it's easier. I mean, obviously, there isn't much unity today between community centers and, when there is, it is considered novel. I wonder what it would be like if people who really loved God had to learn that unity in a way separated from our over-used hierarchies. I wonder what kind of light that would be to the nations.
By the way, I'm not concerned about people not knowing theology and hermeneutics in smaller gatherings. Publishing has given us more tools than we can handle and the average person can explore anything he wants. A lack of knowledge is not the problem, especially when people who are leaving community centers are citing a lack of knowledge and hunger for it as one of the issues that is accepted as culturally acceptable in many community centers. And I'm sure you've been to enough community centers to analyze how many use bad hermeneutics and weak theology to lead a group of people to think this is what God has always intended. So the criticism can certainly slice both ways as the testimonies bear witness.
By the way, your post reminded me of another continuity between Israel and the "church" in that both are referred to as God's "bride."
You're now "whitelisted" Rodney, so your comments don't need moderation anymore. They will post right away.
I don't think we want to put all the human elements of divorce into what God is saying. Israel (northern kingdom) received the "divorce," but not Judah... Jeremiah 3.
Yet even if God completely divorced, shunned, walked away permanently from both kingdoms, why do we continue to get history of God working with his people after this: the remnant in Babylon, the return of Nehemiah, etc. Or what about God coming near to the Jews as his people in Jesus. If he was completely cut off, why would he come to be identified with a bad ex-wife? That would be strange indeed, if God had cut them off completely.
Then Paul affirms God did not cut off Israel as a people in Rom 11:1. So if "divorce" means "completely cut off" God is not following his own rules.
Hebrews tells us that God was providing something better for the Jews for the world. While the Law brought freedom, it could not bring life (James 1, 2). Jesus coming brought life so that the Jews could be a restored bride. Of course, the Gentiles are grafted into this. And the blood of a Jew made this possible.
As for "progressive dispensationalism," here's a few books by leading evangelical scholars... helpful comment/reviews as well to give you some ideas:
http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Dispensationa...
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Progressive-Dispensa...
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Central-Issues-Cont...
In passing with a conversation with Dr. Patterson, I asked him if Rabbis or teachers were appointed or approved, and he said they were not. A Rabbi was simply someone who understood the Torah well and taught it well. He did have students who had to get permission from the Rabbi to begin teaching his teachings (which Jesus does a couple of times).
He also mentioned that Jesus and Paul were most likely taught in the tradition of Rabbi Hillel. He said Paul especially was most likely taught from that tradition (one of Hillel's students being Paul's teacher).
Anyways, priests at that time where not much different than the Old Testament priest from my understanding. A priest performs rituals and sacrifices at the temple and is in charge of that. Therefore, the High Priest was in charge of that whole realm of Jewish life as well as had power in the political sphere in the first century. Your take on the covenants would effect your view on priests in the Christian tradition I would imagine.
Just a little more info in case anyone is interested.
I know in the time of Jesus that Israel had about 20,000 priests. They resided in all the various villages and towns and taught the people in the synagogue and about their daily business. The Pharisees rose up to help put the scriptures into the hands of the common people and was a tradition that Jesus was likely identified with (he quotes from their tradition a lot). Yet he points out where they went wrong as well. All this is in Skarsaune.
It is interesting what your professor pointed out that the Jews recognized those who had the gifts and allowed them to teach. That really resonates with me and makes a lot of sense. After all, even if you were to "appoint" someone, you would do it to the person who reflects the gifts to carry out the work....
First, background: Early synagogues were developed mainly in the diaspora (around the Mediterranean) for members of the Jewish community to get together to read from the scrolls, the book of the covenant, and for study, discussion and community business and affairs. Sometimes there was teaching by a member of the community who had distinguished himself in teaching; sometimes the Talmudic model of everyone interacting with the text (and arguing points) was the way it was. It was generally informal and participatory.
I am not sure how much what we would call “worship” was a part of it. I’d have to check. “Worship” and “service” are actually the same word in Hebrew (avodah). It also means simply “work.” There was a more pageant-like large community-wide “worship service” in Jerusalem at the Temple at special holiday times. In fact Jews would travel to Jerusalem from all over the Mediterranean at these times. Synagogues proliferated mainly in the diaspora in the Hellenistic period (though later in Judea) and usually met in private homes, though at times made use of a room in a public building, or met outdoors in a public square. Meetings of early believers in Jesus naturally followed this model, as it was what they were already used to. The first generation of gentile believers were God-fearers who were already used to attending synagogue (cf Skarsaune).
Synagogues remained in pretty much this model, although special buildings for the purpose of meeting were built in some places after the destruction of the Temple, but mostly not until the third or fourth century, at least in Israel. I am not sure about large cities like Antioch or Alexandria, where there was a large and influential Jewish population. My guess is that meetings of new Christians followed the same pattern for the most part until Constantine. I’m not sure about pre-Constantinian churches, which is why I sayy “guess.”.
My hypothesis is that Constantine was very influential in transforming the idea of ekklesia into the idea many are trying to undo today. One of his main concerns was to sever Christianity from Jews and Judaism, based on theology of some church fathers, esp. Eusebius who was his theology counselor. Constantine did transform the church into a body based on the structure of imperial Rome. His building program, both in Constantinople and in the “Holy Land” favored large elaborate stone structures -- very imperial. He, with his mother Helena, built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Apostles on the Mount of Olives. These marked, respectively, the place of the resurrection, the nativity, and the ascension. The cultural milieu that spawned the idea of honoring these sacred places with big elaborate buildings was certainly not Jewish and was very Roman. Helena also is credited with starting the search for relics, claiming to have found the true cross (or part of it) and its nails among other things.
According to the account of Eusebius, Constantine had the splendid Church of the Apostles at Constantinople (based on the one at the Mt. of Olives) built as a memorial to himself. He had twelve coffins set up, one for each apostle, and set up one for himself right in their midst. He sent out people to the Holy Land to search for relics, this time bones of the apostles, so he could bury them in their proper coffins with himself among them, in the words of Eusebius, “not merely one of them, but a symbol of, if not a substitute for, their Leader.”
It’s obvious that all church structures throughout history have not been as corrupt--we know there have been many humble church buildings and humble pastors-- but I think it is possible that the Christian concept of “church” that many today find lacking, may very well have started with Constantine’s effort to make the Church respectable on the model of imperial Rome.
Rachel
While the Bible is the "authority," the Bible's view is lost without historical context and how the Jews assembled during the captivity and the diaspora. Lots happened during those "silent years" leading into the New Testament (Messianic Scriptures) that is too often overlooked.
I think all you can do is paint with a broad brush. The "narrow brush" tends to turn the New Testament into the new Law. I'm happy with a broad picture in which there is much flexibility. I can't "strain at knats and swallow camel" anymore, at least on this issue.
Do Justly, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...and not by yourself. Church.
I'm all for growing and adapting, not desiring we be forced into the 1st century paradigm, however, we seem to have lost our adaptation spirit in modern times. If you don't fit the program, you're out. If you're out, you must not love God... etc.
Yes, this issue has become a strain at gnat issue, at least to me too... yet I want to help those who feel disenfranchised that they might be closer to the truth than they realize... it's another way to help the oppressed.