Not on Sunday!
Bobby at “Deconstructing Neverland” asks “Where were you @ 11 o’clock on Sunday?”
He has this weird idea that the best place for Jesus’ followers at that holy hour may be out and about around the neighborhood, looking for opportunities to share the love of God in Jesus Christ and to serve their neighbors.
Bobby writes:
I have been bouncing an idea around in my head. What if my family and I wander around our neighborhood during the corporate worship service hour and look for folks walking their dog, washing their car, cleaning their yard or whatever and tell them all about what Jesus has done, is doing, and will do for us and listen for ways to serve them? I’m thinking it would be a great way to get to know our neighbors and maybe advance the kingdom. What do you think?
Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. The same thing that I’m thinking. Bobby has gone off the deep end. Everyone knows that the Bible teaches that good Christians are supposed to make their way to the church building at 11:00 on Sunday morning… earlier if they’re real spiritual.
Implications of the Headship of Christ
Josh at “Called to Rebuild” as written an excellent article called “Christ the Key Ingredient.”
He begins with what he says stands out above everything else: “The absolute centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as Head over all things.”
Beginning with the headship of Christ, Josh steps through several implications, including love for, fellowship with, and unity with other followers of Jesus.
Concerning that unity, Josh writes:
Once I began to know this kind of unity I knew I could no longer denominate myself from other believers. I became convinced that this experience-this bond of life and fellowship-was the answer to all our questions and all our seeking. So I became hungry for more. And eventually I realized that to know this kind of fellowship on a daily basis-which is what the New Testament envisions-I was gonna have to live close enough to my brothers and sisters that we could see each other as regularly as we wanted. No more driving to “church†thirty minutes away, having a couple hours of fellowship (if I was lucky), then having to return home and try my best to survive the rest of the week all alone as a Christian. No. I would spend all my moments within the community of the redeemed, for this is where the Christian life is meant to be lived.
When we began to consider the implications of the headship of Christ – along with his presence – we truly begin to see the church and others in a different light.
What has changed in the way you view other believers because of the headship and authority of Jesus Christ?
Community and Mission result from doing what Jesus says
The title of this post comes from a great blog post by Felicity at “Simply Church: A House Church Perspective.” Her article is called “Mission versus community? 3 random thoughts.”
Lately, Felicity has been writing about both community and mission from the perspective of simple or organic church, and this article falls within that context.
Her three “thoughts” are all very good, but I want to focus on the third “thought”:
Both community and mission should result from listening to Jesus and doing what he says. Jesus lived in community with his disciples–they shared the ups and downs of everyday life together. Â But Jesus was compelled by love–the heart of the Godhead–to reach out to the world.
When I read the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, I can’t help but notice exactly what Felicity points out. Jesus demonstrated both community and mission, and he taught the importance of both mission and community.
When we look at our lives, we should see both community and mission. If not, then we are either not listening to what Jesus says, or we are not living what Jesus taught.
Examiner.com article: Food banks provide more than food
My first Examiner.com article is posted here: Food banks provide more than food.
I’m writing as the “Raleigh Practical Christianity Examiner,” so my goal is to help Jesus’ followers to live out what they say that they believe.
My article begins like this:
Jesus told his disciples that they should be recognized both for their love for one another and for their care for “the least,” that is, for those who are hungry, sick, imprisoned, or homeless. In today’s struggling economy, more and more people find themselves among those needing help.
Since this is a new medium for me, I would appreciate any feedback.
Living Sent
Dave Black pointed us to an old post by Jonathan Grubbs. On his blog, Jonathan answers “An Honest Question about ‘House Church.’”
What question? Well, apparently a friend asked him on Twitter, “How does a house church not grow into a “Sunday morning church” so to speak?”
Jonathan explains how he answered that question in 4 “tweets.” Then he adds a few more sentences of explanation. (You can read the entire “answer” in his post.
Then, Jonathan adds this final paragraph:
But, I have also learned that God has commanded us to make disciples as we are going and “living sent” in the world that God put is in. I have learned that God can work through us much better when we are learning to “be the light” in the darkness, instead of only gathering to shine our lights with other lights. I think the key to not growing into a “Sunday morning church” as the original question is asking is for us to be very intentional about being outward focused and multiplying and not inward focused and simply growing in numbers.
As many of my readers know, I am not part of a “house church,” although I would say that we exhibit traits that are often used to describe simple or organic churches.
However, I think Jonathan’s description of “living sent” is important for all of Jesus’ followers to consider. In fact, I really like the idea of “living sent.” What do you think?
Feasting Together with the Lord
In his continuing series on all things related to “house church,” Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” recently wrote a post called “House Church – The Lord’s Supper Feast.”
First, Eric explains how they eat a meal together during their normal meeting time – everytime they meet together. The meal is an essential part of their gathering, just as essential as singing, praying, and teaching.
Next, he explains that they take the bread and cup as part of the meal, not separately. Finally, he gives us several reasons that he likes eating the Lord’s Supper as a meal:
- It follows the biblical model.
- It’s a full meal. Meals not only taste good, but they also allow for much wonderful conversation.
- The full meal keeps the continuity with the Passover meal (looking backward) and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (looking forward).
- The full meal is a real celebration instead of a solemn ceremony.
- The one loaf and one cup (pitcher for now) help us remember that we are united in Christ. This spurs and encourages the unity of the body.
- Since the meal takes place right in the same spot as the rest of the gathering, there is no artificial dividing line between the Lord’s Supper and the remainder of the fellowship.
- The church in Troas gathered together for the purpose of breaking bread. We do the same.
Have you ever eaten the Lord’s Supper as a meal? What was your reaction?
Breaking it down
A question that I have asked often on my blog (because I continue to ask and study the question myself) is this: at what point is a group of Jesus’ followers the church?
One of the ways that people have traditionally examined this question is to investigate how a particular group treats sub-groups. Or, to put this in more traditional terms, how does a church treat the small groups that are part of that church.
Guy at “The M Blog” has posted on one such summary in his post “What is the difference between a small group, cell church, and house churches?” He provides the following information (taken from a book listed in his post):
On one end of the spectrum, for instance, is the traditional church…[that] uses small groups (often misnamed ‘cell groups’)–this can be described as a ‘church WITH small groups.’
Further along the spectrum is the cell church that places an equal or greater emphasis on its mission-minded small groups (properly called ‘cell groups’) compared to its weekly large group services–this can be described as a ‘church OF small groups.’
However, the house church network sees each house church as a fully fledged, autonomous, church in itself–‘church IS small groups‘.
Guy also provides the following diagram:
Now, as Guy points out in the comments, the definitions and descriptions above are generalizations. But, for many, these are good starting points.
However (and unfortunately), I don’t think these definitions and descriptions answer the question that I’ve been asking. Let me explain. In the traditional and cell church models above, a subgroup of one of those churches would generally NOT be considered the church. But, what about in the “house church network” model? Would a subgroup of one of the house churches be considered the church?
Suppose a particular house church is composed of six families. Now, suppose that three of those families met together one evening. Would the “house church” consider those three families meeting together the church? Maybe. The definitions and descriptions do not tell us.
In fact, the only difference in the three models given above is the point at which a certain group or subgroup is recognized as the church. The models do not tell us if a sub-sub-group would also be recognized as the church. The models do not tell us if a mixed subgroup would be recognized as the church.
Each of the above models shares one very important aspect in common: the people decide at what point and in what setting they recognize themselves as the church. The number of people is not an issue here. If half the “members” of the traditional church, cell church, or house church show up to meet together, it is considered “the church” only if the group has decided it is “the church.” Typically, this is an organizational decision, regardless of the size of the organization.
On a Sunday morning (or whenever), those people would be the church. On a Wednesday (if it is set aside for such), they are the church. But, what about Friday evening at a local high school football game? What about at a birthday party or baby shower?
For me, this is the weakness in each of the models listed above. The people are recognized as “the church” by their own definition and delineation. They decide when they are or are not “the church,” and they decide which subgroup (parts of the whole) or supergroups (additions to the whole) are or are not the church.
When I break it down, (in my understanding) each of the above models actually represents the same explanation of what it takes for a group of Jesus’ followers to be “the church.” What do you think?
I think that it is very important for us to think about when we consider ourselves “the church” and when we do not. Agree or disagree? Why?
A Plethora of Good Posts
Everywhere I looked over the last few days I found some good blog posts. There are some people out there asking good questions and coming up with good answers.
I’m excited that many of these people interact with me on my blog. That’s probably one of the reasons that I read their blogs (or vice-versa).
Anyway, here are a few posts that are definitely worth reading:
James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” with “Thoughts on community care.”
Dan (or Stephanie, actually) at “The Ekklesia in Southern Maine” with “Our DAILY Bread: a guest post.”
Ernest at “Missions Misunderstood” with “Francis Went First.”
Arthur at “The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia” with “Asking Questions is OK.”
With these kinds of posts, it seems that 2011 may be a very good year for blogging about the church.
Have you read any good posts lately that you’d like to share with me and my readers?
Pick a need
Do you see a need in Ethiopia? Then work towards meeting that need.
Is there a need for shut-ins to receive meals? Then deliver meals to them.
Do you recognize a need among orphans in Haiti? Then start helping the orphans.
Are there needs in a local food pantry? Then spend your time helping them.
Are there elderly people in your area who need help? Then help them.
If you see a need, then work towards meeting that need. Invite others to work with you, but don’t wait for them before you start obeying God.
If God is not calling you or gifting you to meet that need, then he will make that clear. Often, though, he reveals your calling and gifting in the midst of you serving others.
I cannot tell you exactly how God is calling you or how God has gifted you. I can tell you one thing that I know with complete certainty. God is NOT calling you or gifting you to do nothing or to only do for those who can love and serve you in return. God is NOT calling you or gifting you only to care for your friends or other believers.
Look around you. Do you see a need? If yes, then start working towards meeting that need. If no, then look again, because you are deceiving yourself. If you still can’t find a need, then join one of the people linked to above in serving others.
Dave Black Comments on Senior Pastors
On his blog (Saturday, January 8, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.), Dave Black mentions a review of Strauch’s Biblical Eldership.
The reviewer agrees with many of Strauch’s conclusions, but disagrees with one point in particular. While Strauch argues against a “senior pastor” position, the reviewer believes a “senior pastor” positions is legitimized based on the roles of Timothy and Titus in the “pastoral epistles” and based on the angles of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3.
Dave responds:
One of the most important lessons in New Testament Introduction courses is a discussion of the so-called Pastoral Epistles, which, of course, were neither written to nor about pastors. It is clear, for example, that the church which Timothy was sent to serve (Ephesus) already had elders — Paul had met with them earlier in Miletus. As for Titus, he was charged with appointing elders in every city on Crete. As I have often said to my students, it is high time we put the term “Pastoral Epistles” out to pasture once and for all. As for the “angels” of the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2-3, considering the consistent use of the term angelos in the book of Revelation, it seems likely that the term is being used to refer to angelic beings in these 2 chapters.
It would seem, then, that the title of senior pastor is in fact inconsistent with the concept of the plurality of elders, assuming that the eldership is, as Strauch argues, non-hierarchical. In fact, I suggest that this is exactly what one would expect when one looks at the twelve apostles of our Lord, none of whom can be said to have held the position of “Senior Apostle.” Of course, one of them, Peter, was a spokesman of sorts for the others on many an occasion, but did this make the rest “Associate Apostles”?
Did you know that “senior pastor” is actually a valid title found in Scriputre? It’s true. It’s used in 1 Peter 5:4 – “chief shepherd” = “senior pastor.”