Would You Like to Help With Our Next Webcast?

4 Comments

1. The Church Why Bother?

   Immediately the Article begins with the traditional, however not biblically grounded, assumption that the Church is a place, which “The Barna Research Group reports… about 10 million self-proclaimed, born-again Christians [in the U.S.] have not been to… in the last six months”. Since the Church of significance is the biblical one, and that is simply the body of Christ (God’s family) as Paul puts it in Scripture, than this statistic bears little weight on God’s reality (or reality as it truly is and) as defined for us in the Good Book.

   It then takes this initial misunderstanding of the biblical concept of God’s Church to the nth degree saying, “Nearly all born-agains say their spiritual life is very important, but for 10 million of them, spiritual life has nothing to do with chruch.
   Speaking in such general sweeping conclusion at this point in the article cries out for the writers of it to define what indeed they mean by the term “church” here.

   Next, we encouter the good old phrase, “unchurched.” And what does this mean? Does it mean simply to through all non-christians, those not yet a part of God’s family – The Church – The Body of Christ, in a group together. The unchurched, as in, not biblically a part of God’s church. Or do are they using this term based on an extra-biblically definition of the term church.

   In our culture the word “church,” has spiritual significance, as it is the word we use to translate a significant biblical reality we learn about in the New Testament. For this reason, anyone using the term in general print, would do well to use it on biblical grounds, as a way of respecting the authority it carries for many people, because of it’s biblical origin. However, we have yet to see, in what biblical sense, the writer’s in this article are using the term. That is, they have yet to define what they mean by the mean by the term here, for their audience. Which, as one reader with biblical familiarity is of significance, sense I’m unable to make a connection between their use of the term here, and my own understanding of God’s reality of church from the Bible.

   I don’t however, have any need to play dumb here, as it takes only a few short paragraphs to become totally clear, that the definition of church here involves something more traditional /organized/programed/scheduled etc, in nature, rather than a mere reference to the essential reality of church revealed to us in Scripture. Or have I now misunderstand. I would certainly appreciate a revelation as to what the authors of this article mean by “church” in this article.

   “Until Martin Luther, the church was the immovable center of gravity. The church had authority over individual Christians: to accept them as they approached the church, to baptize them, teach them, and provide them the means of grace.”

   Sense the church, in Scripture, is made up of all the individuals who are Christians in the world, and the “local church”, in Scripture, is all the individuals who are Christians in any given area, what does the author mean when he says, that “the church had authority over individual Christians: to accept them as they approached the church, to baptize them, teach them, and provide them the means of grace.”? It seems to me that the writer is saying that their are individual Christians that make up “the church” that had authority over individual Christians. But from my understanding, Scripturally speaking, individual Christians are the Church, and the Church is under the authority of Christ, who is the head of the church. Any and all reality of leadership amongs the body of Christ is then realized when people mutually submit to Christ, at times doing so, by submitting to “one another,” and yet at other times doing so by confronting “one another.” For example, Paul confronting Peter as he did and was recording in Acts. Of course, one of the primary ways that God teaches us to walk with Him is through the Scriptures, which for us includes the “the teachings of the apostles,” those trained and endorsed personally by Christ during His earthly ministry.

   It seems to become clear at this point, that the controversy stems around two different understandings of what God’s shepherding of His flock looks like as it comes about with the aspect of His using us to influence one another in His purposes. The understanding in this article seems to step beyond the picture of this reality of God’s leadership amoung His people, in my understanding, to a more traditionally man-centered and hierchal form of organizing people and distributing authority. Such an organization in the time of the early Church may have thought it quite inappropriate for a relatively younger Christian such as Paul to be correcting one of Christ’s closest disciples during His early ministry, Peter. IntereThe sacraments or ordinances are not optional. They may not make sense to 21st-century sensibilities—but so much the more reason to pay attention to them. The sacraments are not a human tradition. They began with Jesus himself. He himself was baptized, saying it was proper “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).

   Offering bread and wine, he told his disciples, “Take and eat; this is my body” (26:26). Churches may have devalued the sacraments, but they still offer them. Nobody else does. How can you follow Jesus and then … not follow him?

   sting that God does not seem to think along this lines.

   “Once people started judging for themselves, it was hard to put an end to it. The next thing you know we had 20,000 denominations worldwide—and counting.”

   Interesting that Paul, in his letter to the early Church in _, affirmed the fact that many of these individual Christians were checking out what he was saying by “searching the Scriptures.” This seems to contrast the context of the preceding quote by the author of this article that suggests, that there are certain individual Christians that should do the thinking for the rest of the Church. However, the basis provided, the history of authority claiming leadership in the church, is also in contrast to the only authority, we have by which to test all authority, that is the written Word of God or Scripture. Perhaps there is more depth to these differences as well.

   “Once the individual hoped for acceptance by the church. Now the church hoped for acceptance by the individual.”

   Are we not to accept one another because Christ has accepted us? Are we seeking to please God or men? What does the Scripture present as the ideal primary focus? The above quote seems to be contrasting two different forms of people-pleasing or as it’s translated in the bible for most of us, pleasing the flesh Vs. pleasing men. But are either of these the point or focus God desires for us in our lives?

   “Funny thing is, many of those denominations today complain that people aren’t loyal to the church.”

   Don’t all denominations think that they are closer to the truth in their methods, and don’t most of them also complain about people not being committed? Is the author taking sides in this struggle between human leader’s in the church? Whose side is he taking here? I

   IS THERE REALLY ANY SUCH THING AS A PARACHURCH ORGANIZATION? The only parachurch organizations I’m aware of are made up of completely or nearly completely all non-Christians. Otherwise, wherever two or three gather together in His name, there God is.

   “The sacraments or ordinances are not optional. They may not make sense to 21st-century sensibilities—but so much the more reason to pay attention to them. The sacraments are not a human tradition. They began with Jesus himself. He himself was baptized, saying it was proper “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).

   Offering bread and wine, he told his disciples, “Take and eat; this is my body” (26:26). Churches may have devalued the sacraments, but they still offer them. Nobody else does. How can you follow Jesus and then … not follow him?”

   Why is it that we need an instition to take part in communion or be baptised? The early Church and Jesus himself did not. Strange how some Christians have come to think what he and the early church had is not enough for us.

   …sorry, I have to run for now. So far nothing presenting in the article as significant, as far as I can tell, is actually essential to the biblical reality of Church.

   Thanks for what your doing here. When are you going to put out your first compilation DVD:) ?

2. Something in me says, why even bother debating them about it? I know what I believe and experience in the Lord and with His people outside any institutional or ‘formal’ system called a ‘church’. It is clear in the NT use of the word translated church that what is meant is a gathering or assembly of people with no reference to a specific form of government, time and place of meeting, or order of practices (specific to the gathering).

   The essence of the early beleivers is not summed up in their forms, but in the expression of Christ’s life through them and isn’t the apparent lack of this through much of institutional chrisitanity the very reason why many are uninspired, uncommitted, and dissatisfied? The early disciples were known by the love shown to one another. What is the testimony and what will be the legacy of the modern institutional

3. Something in me says, why even bother debating them about it? I know what I believe and experience in the Lord and with His people outside any institutional or ‘formal’ system called a ‘church’. It is clear in the NT use of the word translated church that what is meant is a gathering or assembly of people with no reference to a specific form of government, time and place of meeting, or order of practices (specific to the gathering).

   The essence of the early believers is not summed up in their forms, but in the expression of Christ’s life through them and isn’t the apparent lack of this through much of institutional chrisitanity the very reason why many are uninspired, uncommitted, and dissatisfied? The early disciples were known by the love shown to one another. What is the testimony and what will be the legacy of the modern institutional form of christianity? Is it light and life, the “fullness of joy in fellowship” that John speaks of in his epsitle, or something else?

   There is inherent in the system a sense of superiority, need for conformity (control), and fear that cause those in it to spread out the net in an attempt to reign in anything seen as a threat to the legitimacy of their form and practices. My concern is that those of us on the outside would fall prey to feeling like we must justify our existence as christians and our choice concerning how to live, meet together, and serve the Lord.

   Jesus made himself known to me, before I ever knew I was supposed to ‘join a church’; for many years in the midst of a ‘church’ experience; and since leaving it many years ago in favor of a pursuit of Him that was more integrated into the whole of life. I relearned what I knew by the spirit initially, but did not fully understand. That the life of christ in the heart is not defined by weekly rituals and compliance with external observance of special practices man defines as religious. To quote Tozer; “the whole life must worship”

   At the time we (there were a few of us who shared similar experiences) seemed mostly, but not completely alone. Most of the christians we knew did not see or understand, they were content or felt safe within the familiarity of the accepted religious structures. They stayed and some questioned, others stayed and they criticized. Over time we found that historically there have always been some in every generation who walked with the Lord outside the accepted religious establishments of their generations. As we journeyed on we found there were others, actually many others, who had similarly been called to live christ with other believers outside the system.

   We all must walk in the light that we have. To do otherwise is to eventually fall into darkness and a snare. I remain friends with christians that I genuinely admire and respect who have remained in the system all these years. They choose to stay; they are free to do so, that is between them and the Lord. We remain free to pursue Him where, how, and with whom, His spirit leads us.

   Many in the more traditional and established forms of christianity feel otherwise. Like the pharisees of old, they claim that their systems represent the mind of God for their generation. They could not or would not see that God could honor or be a part of anything else. In their blindness, they were missing the mark then, and so are now.

   As Jesus taught us, the Father’s mind cannot be separated from his heart. So let us seek his heart, pursue peace with all men as far as it is possible with us, and trust His one Spirit that He has given to reveal, teach, and lead and guide us into all the truth that he has for this generation of His called out people.

4. This simple Christian life sure can get complicated. Whatever happened to “Jesus loves me, this I know”? Why does religion (not just in church) make relationship with God so difficult?

   I think Jesus came to make it easy for everyone to know God. We are the ones who make it hard.

Comments are closed.