Dale Fincher - Latest Comments in What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Donny — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:27:55 -0000

Dale,
Thanks for this post. I have been struggling with this issue for several months now. Our congregataion is currently wiithout a Pastor (or if I may be allowed to have influence in the decision: a "main teaching elder") and one canadidate we interviewed asked us, "Why do you exist, or why should the doors remain open at your building and not merge with another Bible-believing church?" That really started me to thinking and the only answer I could come up with, is, "If all we are, and are going to be, is another Independent Baptist Church in a sea already polluted with Independent Baptist Churches then we have no purpose and I cannot find justification for our continued existence." I have wrestled with that question long and hard which naturally led me to the very question you have asked... "What then IS Church?"

I know more about what it is 'not' right now, than what it is. It is not the bunker where "Christians" gather in order to "be ye separate" nor is it a place where we invite 'sinners' in in order that they might get under the "sound of the gospel" preached by the "man of God."

First: The assembly of the saints of God is for their edification, exhortation, and a time to be built up in the faith through the word, fellowship and most of all worship of the one who is worthy, our Lord God Jesus Christ and God the Father thru whom, in whom and by whom all things exist. (a bit preachy but true). The Assembly is not to be made into the primary source of evangelism that it has become in so many American "Churches".

Second: The "sound of the gospel" is such a cop-out. That is the mantra of lazy so-called Christians who have thrown off their primary roll as priests and ambassadors. Each and every one of us who name the name of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour are called to be witnesses and be ready to give to anyone who asks us, reason for the hope that is within us. To drag a lost person to "Church" so that they get under the "sound of the gospel" is nothing less than Roman Catholicism re-dressed in some other denominational camaflage. Every believer should be able to tell someone else what we believe, why we believe it and tell what Jesus Christ had done for us. (nowhere in scripture does it say we have to be "deal closers" as if we are part of some divine marketing campaign.)

Third: there is the whole "man of God" issue. Last time I checked everyone who is Born again is a Child of God and that makes us, men and women of God. The very idea of Clergy and Laity came out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustinian teachings that created the whole "Christian" class/ caste system.

I am in the process of reading Jim Petersen's "Church Without Walls." there is much I am getting from his writings along the lines of what Church sought to be. I have enjoyed reading these posts and answers as well. There is so much more that I will have to read, research and pray about but i know for myself I have already jetisoned the normal version of the American church, along with most of the pop-dispensationalism that comes with it. I have come to the conclusion that the pre-mil/pre-trib rapture theory is deadly to the health of a church, because it soon becomes a bunker where everyone is content to occupy until Jesus comes. And then every disaster and calamity that makes the new is heralded as "you know we are living in the end days" and "it can't be long now..." and many churches climb in the bunker and close the hatch... and the world around us no longer sees a people of God who have good news... but members of an increasingly irrelevent sub-culture.
Wow, I didn't mean to write so much. Anyway thanks for the postings. I will definitely be digesting much of what is here in the weeks and months to come.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:24:04 -0000

Thanks, Adam... I'm with you. And I think we might have some explaining to do when we finally see Jesus. He was very concerned that his people did not heap burdens onto the backs of others... all this strange "legalism" that church be identified solely with the building on the corner looks burdensome. Nobody's even allowed to rest anymore.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

philosurfer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:33:16 -0000

Nice post, Dale.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:48:04 -0000

Rachel, thanks for this background. I think this MUST be part of the discussion (and I hope everyone who reads this blog, reads your comment).

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Rachel Wolf — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:42:12 -0000

I was just thinking about how the idea of Church, as both a hierarchical organization, and as a building where members go for some form of majestic and stately worship or pageantry, may have started. I offer this as one hypothesis:

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

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:53:10 -0000

That's helpful, Philip. Thanks.

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....

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:48:35 -0000

What you've described is supersessionism: the replacement of the Jews. Previously you did not say the Jews were replaced, so that needs to be worked out, but maybe not here.

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/Progr...

http://www.amazon.com/Case-...

http://www.amazon.com/Three...

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Pkenney86 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:30:22 -0000

A note about offices and other little tidbits.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Rodney again — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:20:51 -0000

except that the OT declares that God was married to Israel and that He gave Israel a "bill of divorcement" and is now preparing the church to be His bride on the future day of consumation...two distinct intities with two different sets of promises...classic or traditional dispensationalism. (I cannot comment on what you had previously refered to as 'progressive dispensationalism' because I had never heard of it).

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:57:35 -0000

I like those $.02.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Rodney again — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:25:35 -0000

The other problem then, of course, is that we really need to get back to what Christ originally established with the New Testament Church...His body...His bride...His assembly of born-again, blood bought, belivers in the Messiah who are submitted to His loving Lordship on earth. It wasn't a community center or worship center, or group Bible study that He started and gave the pastoral epistles to give structure to, but the church. So, we should in essence, get back to the true meaning and essence of the Church and Christ's relationship with her. (My 2 cents)

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:15:09 -0000

Amy, yeah, it's a lot... let it sit on you for a while... then let me know what you think!

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

amysondova — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:44:50 -0000

Wow...this is a lot to take in. I really like your points though. Fascinating.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:44:17 -0000

Hey Paul, yes, I am with you... we need these kinds of discussions that "drive home the point that the church is not The Church." What I'm proposing is not a mindset that can change overnight. It would take a generation at least. The cultural beliefs on what "church" is and the guilt associated with not going to a community center every week is deeply ingrained in us. I hear these conversations with people regularly and it only continues to convince me more.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

W Paul — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:04:47 -0000

I guess my concern is really a prudential one. Is one required to attend church regularly to be a "good" Christian? No. But I'm not convinced there's a whole lot of alternatives out there. I'm guessing one "home church" out of 1000 will have someone in it that is actually sufficiently trained to deal with complex theological (or even just hermeneutical) issues. My own experience (and this where anecdotal evidences becomes quite tricky) has demonstrated that the large majority of people that stop attending church regularly either don't replace church attendance with some other gathering or if they do, it's not for very long. But here we might have the similar question. Why think any regular gathering at all is required? Well, my experiences (here we go again!) show that those that "go it alone" almost never continue to grow as Christians.

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,

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:36:43 -0000

Paul, I’m grateful for your input.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

W Paul — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:50:41 -0000

Dale,

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Mandi Hutchins — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:39:58 -0000

very unfortunate...

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Rachel Wolf — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:49:51 -0000

As a Jewish believer-in-Yeshua of the baby boomer generation I would like to add my experience briefly to the discussion. There is no ambiguity here for me or for most Jewish people. The church on the corner? Out of the question.

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.jewishvirtuallib...

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/...

http://www.geocities.com/ar...
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

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

tomdart — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:46:23 -0000

Jesus made it quite clear that "worship would not be on that hill or in that city". Yet, as Ren's words showed, we have forgotten that. The meeting place has an auditorium where "worship" takes place along with other things. We tend to call this auditorium the "sanctuary" and may even knell when we enter the holiness of it all. In my brandname church we do not say sanctuary but I am not touchy about that word..I mentioned it to emphasize the point made by Ren.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:41:06 -0000

Name, thanks for stopping by.

"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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:56:01 -0000

Rodney, I know your time is limited, so I appreciate your comments. And I think they will be helpful to the reader to see various points of view as they seek to find a way forward and a larger identity as God's people. I'll reply according to your points.

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.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:46:56 -0000

Ren, here here!

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! :)

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Ren D. — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:35:20 -0000

I have to say, I really like the way your perspective on this is pointing. This is a touchy subject, but it seems that a great deal of the disillusionment, non-relevance, and lack of authenticity are a result of viewing/reverencing the building we've built and attend as "church." There becomes a tendency to believe that worship and fellowship in that building is somehow inherently better than worship or fellowship elsewhere. When people see through this, it often leads to this disillusionment we see. We need to have buildings in which the church can meet and worship, "community centers" for the community of the church. But I think our daily, active, worship as we live our lives in the cultural community around us will be that much more vibrant and real when we adjust our vision to realize that the church is the people of God not the building we choose to meet in sometimes.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Dale Fincher — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:01:32 -0000

Feel free to make your comments as long as you like. No rule against that. :)

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!