Chastened "church"?
Hey--you can't read this unless you agree to visit the previous post, "Quo vadis?" and provide your response to the questions there, OK? Please? Now, not later? Please?
So why are we not hearing much anymore from Matthew 16, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" or Eph 3:10, "God's purpose was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God would be made plain to the principalities and powers"? The church is not the kingdom, but can we seek the kingdom apart from the church? Not the church as currently constituted and constructed, perhaps, but the church nonetheless. It feels like we're all (sometimes) had-it-up-to-here with church life and hungry to get 'out there' where 'the kingdom is happening.' Kinda like to genuuinely engage the real-deal kingdom, it's best to quit the church, or that the church is the ball-and-chain that keeps serious Christians from kingdom work.
posted by Brian Emmet @ 11:42 AM
11 Comments:
hmmmm.... good questions... but I am not sure I have good answers. I am one of those who is pretty discouraged with the church as I have known it....I do find that I am more intereseted in the "kingdom" right now than I am in the "church."
At the risk of being controversial, I wonder if we have stacked too much into the concept of the "church" as we have known it? After all, Jesus only used the word 3 times if I am not mistaken, and he probably did not even use the greek word ecclesia at all...that was more likely picked up by Paul and others from the secular Greek world 20 or so years later, in order to avoid using the Greek "synagoge" (sp?) which virtually met the same thing as ecclesia but had religious overtones for Jews that ecclesia did not. And then King John did us the huge favor of forbidding the use of the word "congregation" in the English version and used instead the Scottish word "Kirk" = church, in order to avoid closing down the Cathedrals. I don't what Aramaic word Jesus might have used to indicate his "congregation" ... but he used the word for kingdom many, many times more.
I think we have made the mistake of using the "church" as our starting point to find the kingdom... it seems to me, that Jesus and the apostles used the kingdom as their starting point...then made disciples....and finally, Jesus built HIS congregation or assembly.
The problem is, we keep trying to build OUR "church".... and we end up with meetings rather than committed disicples walking in the kingdom. If we would ditch the effort to "build the church" and instead focus on entering the kingdom and making disicples (both of which are Christ's commands) we may find ourselves in His congregation down the road....
j
Not sure this works, Joseph--the idea that because Jesus uses a word "only" a few times, that means it isn't very important. After all, the Gospels were written to/for the church/es, not to/for the kingdom; same with Paul's letters. The NT is to/for the world also, but in a very different way. But I was intrigued by the thought that 20 years ago, we were very excited about "I will build my church" and now we're not so excited. (Actually, I'm pretty excited about what's happening in my church, but that's probably because I'm the pastor, eh?)
I'm not hung up on the word "church" either--if we want to call it the assembly, the gathering, the congregation, the people of God, that's fine with me. So let's eliminate the word "church" but ask the same question--what is the connection between the [term of choice] and the kingdom? Are they opposed; is the former mainly an impediment to the fulfillment of the latter? Or is our seemingly endless quest to "reinvent" the [term of choice] and to be the people who "finally get it right" symptomatic of something else? Please understand that I am not arguing that the church in its present form is perfectly fine, in need of nothing, etc...I think that's rather the point: we ALWAYS pretty much have to deal with "a NT church", i.e., a church riven with factions, filled with hypocrites and heroes, saints and sinners, riven by heresies, and distressed by the world, the flesh and the devil. Shouldn't we fight against the idealistic, utopian hope (this side of heaven)of "a pure church" that would of necessity exclude people like me? After all and despite my self-deceptions to the contrary, I am not particularly faithful, especially holy or unusually committed. I have not loved God with my whole heart; I have not loved my neighbor as myself...
yeah... I am not calling for a "pure" church either...and my perspective is probably biasd by the fact that I am currently not a pastor...and one might say, not even "going" to church. Our perspective is always influenced by our .... what? position? I am spending more time in the secular world these days...and more in the evangelistic mode.
I also have been very disatisfied with MY own experience of church...not so much my experience of being discipled in the Covenant movement...that was a blessings...but more in terms of the fruit I saw as a result of my own church planting and pastoring efforts.
Nevertheless, I think my point still stand that Jesus did not talk much about the church/congregation/gathering or whatever. And when he did, he pointedly said, "I will build MY church"... he never said "go and plant churches," or "go to church" or much of anything about the church. In his entire body of teaching, he only said basically three things about the churc: HE will build it, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, and if you can work a problem out with a brother privately, or with two or three friends, take it to the church.
On the other hand, he talked incessantly about the kingdom. He commanded us to "seek first the kingdom" ... that becomes interesting when you stack it up next to "going to church" ... being in the church, etc. FIRST seek the kingdom... I am not sure what that means... I am still processing it.
I don't think it means that the church is not important...but I think we have put the cart before the horse. Jesus said, "seek first the kingdom" and "make disciples of all the nations". He never said "go and plant churches" it is not a matter of what is important, but a matter of sequence or priority.
I am coming to the belief that rather than seek to plant churches, we should seek the kingdom, wherever it is being expressed...and we should seek, NOT to take people to church, but to introduce them to the kingdom. Once that they respond to the kingdom, THEN we can disciple them to Jesus...and all along Jesus will be quietly building His church.
At least that is my thinking. I really have come to love and appreciate all of the varieties and expressions of the church recently. Pentecostal, Charismatic, Catholic. REformed. However, the church is not the starting point, or the end point, the kingdom is...the rule of Christ.
anyway, that is my two cents worth. It probably does not matter what I think because God is going to do what He is going to do regardless.
j
The only place that records Jesus using "ekklesia" is in the Gospel of Matthew. I agree with Joseph that it seems the writer did equate the church with the synagoge...where teaching and discipline are centered. There are about a dozen metaphoric references to the "Body of Christ" which we assume to mean the church. I don't want to split hairs as to the relative inspiration of Jesus' words and those of Peter or Paul. There would be no end to that. Whether the church today is living up to her mission is certainly in question. The shaffolding of church distracts and often obstructs its mission. We invest so much in keeping the purity of the theology of the faith as we individually understand it and in the day to day running of church business, often with no real critical thinking about effectiveness. Sights are set low, and we don't even meet those. We can't seem to get our people to even invite neighbors over to share faith and life. Most of us want to be excited...but aren't any more or just yet. Church just ends up being something else we feel obligated to do..even if it seems like a waste of time. I know it's going to take a move of God to change all this...not another book or seminar.
I didn't mean to start a controversy...but this has been something I have been thinking about for several years. I am sure that my view is influenced (jaundiced?) by my own personal frustration and sense of failure in working with the church. Also, I am currently functioning more as an evangelist...and I am sure that my focus is more on how to advance the kingdom into the secular world rather than how to get the church to function better.
I am no where near ready to throw out the church....I have really appreciated Robert's empahsis on appreciating church tradition, even when the tradition is mixed. I love the church, as the bride of Jesus.
What is going on in me is probably a process of "deconstruction" to borrow a post-modern term, of tearing down my assumptions about the church, in order to eventually get back to a better understanding.
I think it has something to do with the kingdom. In my opinion, (and this is where you and I will probably agree Brian), if the kingdom is breaking in upon the church, it does not matter what kind of church it is....mega, or house, Catholic, Orthodox, or Baptist.... as long as the kingdom is breaking in upon it, there will be life.
The opposite is also true... if the kingdom is not manifesting...does not matter what kind of church it is...what they call themselves, Conventant, Vineyard, Catholic, Episcopal, Universalist, mega, purpose-driven or organic/house church.... there will be no life in the absence of the kingdom dynamic.
that is why I am searching into the kingdom to understand it better. I believe the starting place must be in the dynamic presence of the "here now/but not yet" kingdom.
And of course, one (I would think) can find that dynamic operating outside the organized church as well...the kingdom is bigger than the church. That is what I am prowling around looking for on University campuses, artists groups, clubs, etc. Where is the kingdom operating? and how can I get in on it?
What is being discussed is important...how we approach it can make a big difference. I appreciate Joseph's sincere inquiry about it all, because it's something believers and nonbelievers are having to sort out, today. It's worth noting that after Pentecost, and throughout the New Testament, believers came together...frequently. Call it what you want. However, we are so amazingly gifted by the grace of God, we can produce outstanding accomplishments in almost every realm of life, including the Church. The question for me when it comes to the church is, what is Holy Spirit driven, and what is simply man's inspiration and abilities apart from God?
No apologies needed; the "controversy" has been alive and well for some time and I think this is something we're all wrrestling with! My concern has been that we could make the mistake of substituting, confusing or equating the kingdom for/with the church in a way similar to how we (in the persons of our forebears) substituted the church for the kingdom. As the kingdom "operates" the church is birthed. The church is witness to and servant of the kingdom, not the other way round. At the same time, I don't think the kingdom is fully "operational" unless the church--of whatever form--is being built. As people, be they modern, postmodern, premodern or whatever, hear and respond to the Gospel, they need to find their way into a community of worship, outreach, discipleship, etc.--they need to be 'churched' (even if we choose another word to describe this process). In this sense, I agree with the Catholic position that there is nbo salvation outside the church, while disagreeing with how they formulate it (i.e., only in "full communion" with Rome can a person be fully "in" the church of Jesus Christ). I don't care where the church (or whatever we want to call it--assembly, congregation, gathering, the people, etc.) meets or the particulars of how it functions, but it IS the church of Jesus Christ; it's not the kingdom, but is nonetheless central to the kingdom's purposes and operations. And while the kingdom is bigger than the church, Jesus "marries" the church, not the kingdom. We cannot seek the kingdom without also building the church--and we cannot build the right sort of church without seeing and seeking first the kingdom.
Robert's right: This has become one fast moving train! What a great discussion! I just reread all the comments and found them, again, most stimulating. GREAT subject/question, Brian! I certainly concur with what has already been stated, this is not an easy question to address. Perhaps I could throw in a few additional thoughts: First, this is a very "white" conversation! Most Afro-Americans love the church (in its more traditional sense) and consider it to be the center of their lives. I dare say that most black pastors would not even be wrestling over this issue. The same could probably be said for the majority of the Korean, Chinese, Latin, and other "minority" groups. I say "minority," because they are in the minority in terms of our population; HOWEVER, if one considers the number of blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc., I would guess that a much greater percent claim to be Christians, then in the white, Anglo population. Which leads to the next question, How does all this fit into the larger picture of the church in the earth . . . 1 Billion are Catholic in their faith and of the approx. 1 billion OTHER "Christians," the largest single group is the Orthodox faith, followed (I believe) by the Anglican tradition. Seems to me "a whole lot of CHURCH going on here!" Finally, on the other side of the equation, understanding that the Kingdom of God is bigger than the church has lead folks to look at new methods and paradims for evangelism in places like the muslim world. Lynn just returned from a conference at the Center for World Missions, where the focus was winning Muslims to faith; yet, not encouraging them to leave Islam, but essentially (and I am REALLY watering it down)practice Kingdom living within their faith. This approach is not without controversy, but only an understanding of the Kingdom could even lead to such an idea. Looking forward to reading more great reponses from my brothers! . . . RR
Thanks to all who responded to my three questions in the previous "Quo Vadis" post. If you haven't, please do! This conversation is great! I scanned back through some earlier posts and discovered some new comments had been made. Jospeh, happy to have you, keep firing away. I know of IAM and Mako. I'm happy to rotate the hosting of these discussions, but you're going to have to let me know if you'd like to host, 'cause I've got the next post question locked and loaded. No rush on releasing it, we'll let this go a bit longer. I'm just saying you can follow, lead or get outta my way!
(I'm kidding OK? Just feeling juiced from the joy of this conversation! Let me know if you'd like a turn).
hi guys, good discussion...and good questions, Brian.
by-the-way, speaking of the church, I found this interesting thread on the "Generous Orthodoxy Think-Thank" blog, about growing liturgy using U2 music:
http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2007/02/u2charist.html
j
hey,
where did everybody go? Did I break up the party?
j
Post a Comment
<< Home