It is dangerous to ask Why?
As most of my regular readers know, I like to ask questions. Sometimes, the questions that we ask are more important than the answers that we come to. Two and a half years ago, I wrote a post called “It is dangerous to ask ‘Why?’” I like to ask, “Why?” Here are some of the questions that I asked then:
————————————————————-
It is interesting, and sometimes dangerous, to ask why believers traditionally do certain things:
Why do we say that the church is people and people are important, but spend so much money on buildings?
Why is the place where the church meets called a “sanctuary”, “house of God”, or “church”?
When believers meet together, why is it called a “worship service”?
Why is a piece of bread and a thimble of juice and fifteen minutes at the end of a “service” called “the Lord’s Supper”?
Why do men wear suits and women wear dresses when believers meet together on Sunday mornings with other believers?
Why do believers typically bow their heads and close their eyes when they pray?
Why do we use a phrase like “pastoral authority”?
Why do we put all of our “offering” in a joint account, then decide later what to do with it?
Why is the “preacher” or “pastor” allowed to speak when the church meets but no one else is allowed?
Why are some people called “Reverend”?
Why do we need a special “family life center” for sports activities when there are perfectly good community centers?
Why do we call each other “brother” and “sister” when we barely know one another?
Why do we spend one minute shaking hands and call it “fellowship”?
Why do we spend so much time arguing about things that are not in Scripture when we are not obeying what is in Scripture?
Why do we think that God speaks clearest through a sermon?
When we meet with other believers, why do we spend most of our time looking at one person and the back of everyone else’s heads?
Why are only certain believers called “ministers”?
Why do we emphasize, teach, and demand obedience to these things (and others) which are not found in Scripture – and some are even contrary to Scripture – while we de-emphasize, ignore, or explain away other things such as discipleship, fellowship, community, or the “one anothers” which are emphasized in Scripture?
What does it take to be a church?
A couple of years ago, I ran across a site that had several sample brochures. What kind of brochures? Brochures to advertise your new church.
Now, these advertisements were not meant for people in the community where the church would meet. No, these brochures were meant to be sent to other churches in order to convince them to support your team as you started a new church.
One of the samples was produced by a group of three men, each of whom planned to have a leadership role in their new church. Their goal was to move to a new city, rent a place to meet, and encourage people to come meet with them. They decided that they could do this for $700,000 for the first 2 years.. And, they were sending this brochure to people in order to raise $700,000 to cover their expenses… mostly salaries ($500,000) and rent.
Now, I’m concerned about many things related to this brochure, and others like it on that site. But, the question that this kind of thing raises for me is this: “What does it take to be a church?”
According to the people putting together the brochure that I mentioned, it takes leadership, alot of money, and a nice meeting space. Is this what it takes to be a church?
Similarly, I’ve heard of groups meeting together (maybe calling themselves a Bible study) for several months before they “launch” their new church. What was the difference between the “Bible study” and the “church”? The difference was a special meeting time and place. Is this what it takes to be a church?
What does it take to be a church?
The Kingdom and the Church
In the gospels (and occasionally in the epistles) we read alot about the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven). However, when we get to the epistles, we most ready about the church.
I think there is a relationship between the kingdom of God and the church. But there may be some distinctions between the two also – at least there seem to be some distinctions in the way that the NT authors use the phrases “kingdom of God” and “church.”
So, what is the relationship between the kingdom of God and the church? Do the phrases refer to the same thing?
Geographically Local Church
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “Geographically Local Church.” In this post, I try to point out that we do not use the term “church” today to distinguish between groups of believers the way the corresponding term was used by the New Testament authors. I think that if we started trying to use our word “church” the way the NT authors used the Greek term ekklesia, we would see just how far our understanding of “church” has changed. What do you think?
——————————————————————-
Many Christians make a strong distinction between the “universal” and “local” church. For example, John S. Hammett writes, “Local and universal is the most widely used terminology for the twofold meaning for ekklesia found in the New Testament.” (Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches) (See this post for further discussion of the “local” and “universal” distinctions.) For the purpose of this post, I will assume that Hammett is correct: the New Testament uses the term ekklesia to specify a “local church” and a “universal church”. However, even if this distinction is correct, it does not mean that we generally use “local church” in the same manner that Scripture recognizes a “local church”.
For example, “church” in the NT (when not used of the “universal” church), always designates a geographical group of people. (UPDATE: When I say “a geographical group of people,” I mean a group of people in the same geographical area. HT: Lew) For example, there is the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, the church in Ephesus, etc. Yes, there are churches based in homes. But there is no indication that these churches were removed (separate) from the geographical church in the respective city.
However, today we use the term “local church” differently. We do not use “church” to specify a “geographical locale”, but instead we use the term to differentiate based on structure, organization, theology, etc. For example, the people in the houses around me attend four different “churches”. In fact, even though we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (in theory), we rarely interact. And, this is considered normal.
However, I do not think this is biblical, nor does it describe how the biblical authors use the term “church”. What do you think?
Proclaim, Teach, Serve
In my previous post, “The Birth of the Church Demonstrates its Purpose,” I commented on Graham H. Twelftree’s conclusion that the church was born in the ministry of Jesus when he called the twelve apostles. The church continued the ministry of Jesus (according to the Book of Acts) after his ascension again through the work of the apostles, then later through all followers of Jesus.
But, as I said, Twelftree’s conclusion affects more than the origin of the church. Instead, the church’s origin indicates its purpose (or mission). Thus, if the church began in the ministry of the Jesus and continued the ministry of Jesus through the apostles, then the church should be continuing the ministry of Jesus. What should this ministry look like? What does it entail?
If Twelftree is correct, then the church’s understanding of its mission should begin in the Gospels. In my previous post, I mentioned that I have been considering this over the last few months because of our study of Matthew. For example, consider these passages where Matthew describes Jesus’ earthly ministry:
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23 ESV)
And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. (Matthew 9:35 ESV)
Each of these sentences are part of summary sections in which Matthew describes Jesus ministry. Between these two passages we see examples of Jesus teaching, proclaiming the kingdom, and healing.
Immediately following the Matthew 9:35, Jesus appoints the apostles and sends them out to do the same things that he had been doing:
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. (Matthew 10:5-8 ESV)
Thus, the apostles’ mission was the same as Jesus’ earthly mission.
If Twelftree is correct that we are given the same mission, then we can see from these passages that our mission is three-fold: proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God, teaching, and healing. Note, I’ve changed “healing” to “serving” because we cannot control whether or not someone is healed. However, we can serve and care for people even when they are not healed. (For example, see Jesus’ positive expression of love expressed through service in the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37.)
There is a danger in listing a three-fold purpose like this. In our minds, its easy to categorize these three purposes and separate them. However, from the narrative of Matthew 4-9 especially (where we see Jesus modeling all three), we can see that the three-fold purpose must not be separated. We cannot separate proclaiming from teaching or serving, or separate teaching from proclaiming or serving, or separate serving from proclaiming or teaching.
Yes, there will be times when proclaiming is more prominent and times when teaching is more prominent and times when serving is more prominent. But, the mission remains three-fold, not separate. And we miss the purpose when only one or two parts of the three-fold are considered more important and given special emphasis.
Proclamation without teaching and service is not proclamation. Teaching without proclamation and service is not teaching. Service without proclamation and teaching is not service. The three go together and should be seen as interwoven and interlocked as the church’s purpose and mission.
Also, when I say “the church’s mission,” I also mean each Jesus follower’s mission. We cannot reduce the church’s purpose to an organizational purpose, but the purpose should be recognized as the purpose and mission of each believer. The question is not: is someone among the church carrying out each part of the mission. Instead, the question is: Am I carrying out each part of the mission.
The Birth of the Church Demonstrates its Purpose
In his book People of Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), Graham H. Twelftree examines the church from the perspective of Luke through his Gospel and Acts. In the second chapter of this very interesting book, Twelftree asks when the church started. Is the origin of the church found at Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit? Twelftree says, “No.”
In considering Luke’s view of the origin and purpose of the Church, two points can be made. First, an unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this chapter is that from Luke’s perspective the Church has its origin in the ministry of Jesus and is recreated by the risen Jesus to be the renewed people of God. In the simple unaided call of the apostles and the collection of them around Jesus, the Church had its origins or birth..
We can say that Luke would not call Pentecost the birth of the Church. For him the origins of the Church is in the call and community of the followers of Jesus during his ministry. Perhaps Luke would say that what was born in hope in the ministry of the earthly Jesus was given the ‘breath’ (pneuma) of life and power in the promised coming of the ‘Spirit’ (pneuma). This means that, for Luke, the Church does not occupy a period in history separate from that of Jesus. Rather, the Church was called into existence by him and is a continuation of his ministry. (p 28)
Twelftree bases his conclusion on several pieces of textual evidence. First, Luke writes in Acts 1:1 that his previous work (the Gospel of Luke) was about “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” It follows, then, that the Book of Acts is about what Jesus continued to do and teach. Thus, one of the connections between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts is found in the ministry of the earthly Jesus and its continuation in the life of the church.
Also, Twelftree demonstrates that Luke uses the twelve apostles as characters to connect his Gospel to Acts. In fact, as the first people who were called to follow Jesus in his earthly ministry, the apostles form the core of the church after Jesus’ ascension. However, not long into the Book of Acts, Luke demonstrates how the ministry of Jesus which had been continued by the twelve apostles, was then further continued by others.
Thus, while the twelve apostles connect the Gospel to Acts, and while the twelve represent the birth of the church and the continuation of Jesus’ ministry, the importance of the twelve soon diminished, being replaced by the importance of all believers as they continued what Jesus did and taught. Twelftree writes:
In eventually promoting Barnabas and particularly Paul to the rank of apostle, Luke is able to show his readers that the purpose of the Church portrayed in his Gospel and the early parts of Acts is to be the same as for the Church in the life of the readers. There is no closing of one age (the apostolic) and the initiating of another (post-apostolic) period. The kingdom, inextricably bound to the notion of mission, is conferred on the apostles, and experienced by them and expressed by them. The kingdom is also the subject of Paul’s attention as Acts closes. But this closing is the opening for the readers to continue experiencing and expressing the kingdom in their lives. (p. 29)
I’ve always considered Pentecost to be the birth of the church. But, I think that Twelftree’s arguments have merit, and that his conclusion warrants consideration. In fact, while studying the Gospel of Matthew in the last few months, I’ve recognized that Jesus called his followers to continue his ministry, especially when he sent the twelve out two-by-two in Matthew 10:5 (compare to Matthew 4:23, 9:35).
If the church’s origin is found in the ministry of Jesus, and if the church’s purpose is to continue the ministry of Jesus, what should we be doing today as the church? How should gathering together (the focus of this blog) aid in this purpose? How can gathering together distract from this purpose?
When the Church Arrives
I enjoyed the essay “Church is Here” by Joy Schroeder at “Communitas Collective.” As Joy struggled with her understanding of church and the busyness and concerns of the week, the greeting of a five-year-old girl helped her understand the nature of the church:
We finally arrived, 45 minutes later than I had planned. I apologized sheepishly to anyone and everyone while imagining the worst to be unfolding behind the doors of the enormous vacation home. Visions of grumblings about late dinner and half-starved children wailing like banshees invaded my mind. Instead, what I overheard as my family hustled inside completely changed my demeanor and the direction my evening was headed, and subtly confronted my personal struggle with what to call our group and weekly gatherings.
Emma, the precocious five-year-old daughter of one of the other families, noticed us coming through the door with overflowing armloads of food to share, and joyfully exclaimed:
“Look, Mom! Church is here!”
If the church is people (and it is), then shouldn’t we use the word “church” in that way?
Defining Church
Last night, I read Dave Black’s new booklet Christian Archy. (I would highly recommend it.) This is not a book review. Instead, I wanted to mention his “definition” of church:
The church is… a people in community whose mission is to spread the rule of Christ. (18)
He then adds this:
The purpose of the Body of Christ is to make Jesus visible in the world. (18)
And, what is our responsibility as the church toward one another? Why do we meet together?
As members of Christ’s missionary Body, our purpose is to build up the community of the saints in mission to the world. (20)
I like this definition. In fact, I’ve almost convinced myself to write a series of posts unpacking the definition and the implications.
What do you think of Black’s definition of the church?
The Sacraments and the Church
Three years ago, I was a new PhD student and very new to blogging. In fact (believe it or not), I only wrote a few blog posts each month. During the fall of 2006, I started reading a book by Jim Peterson called em>Church Without Walls. Later that I year I would write that that book was the “Best Book of the Year” that I had read.
In a post from three years ago called “The Sacraments and the Church,” I interacted with a statement from Peterson’s book concerning one of the reformational “marks” of the church: the sacraments (ordinances, whatever). Here is that post:
————————————
I have been greatly challenged by Jim Peterson’s book Church Without Walls. In chapter nine, “New Boundaries for the Church,” he states, “One lesson that comes through in our discussion of history and of form and function is that the church has constantly tended toward narrowing.” What he means by this is that historical periods (i.e. the church fathers, the reformation), theological systems, denominational distinctives, and culture add limitations to our understanding of Scripture and, therefore, our understaning of the church. Here is one example:
One example is the Reformers’ treatment of the sacraments. Previously the pope had served as the unifying factor for the church. He defined the church. Since all the Reformers rejected the authority of the pope, a replacement symbol was needed. It is significant that the sacraments-particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper-are included in virtually all of their definitions. But do they belong at all? Is that why the sacraments were given to God’s people? Is it baptism that makes a church a church? Is that why the Lord’s Supper was instituted? The sacraments were not given to define the church for us. And whenever we impose a second meaning on something in this manner, its true significance is diminished or even lost.
For the past few months, I have been pondering a definition of the church. I even had a series of blog posts about the definition of the church (Final post with links to previous posts). My definition did not include the sacraments. I believe the sacraments are very important, but I do not see where Scripture uses the sacraments to define the church. Are the sacraments something that the church does? Yes. Do the sacraments define the church? No. Is a church still a church if it does not practice the sacraments? Yes. Does a group become a church because they practice the sacraments? No.
Am I correct? If not, why not? If so, then what is the purpose of the sacraments (or ordinances, if you prefer)? Also, if I am correct, have we diminished the true significance of the sacraments?
21st Century Church Contest Entries
Energion’s blogging/essay contest is finished. All the submissions are in, and the judging has begun. I know, because I’m one of the judges. Without giving away my preferences or rankings, I thought I would share some thoughts from each essay (in the order listed by Energion):
From A. Amos Love’s submission:
This congregation of “Disciples of Christ,†“the ekklesia of God,†“ sons of God,†will;
Forsake all…
Love not the world…
Love not their own life…
Just want to know Him…
Count all things but dung…
Always take the lower place…
Make themselves of no reputation…
From Arthur Sido’s submission:
Scripture does not lay out a specific, liturgical schedule of events to govern the lives of believers nor is one desirable. All too often we have tried to push Scripture aside when it comes to the gathering of the New Covenant people as the church and replaced it with our own pragmatic solutions, rituals and traditions which may bring us comfort and a sense of being religious but bring little glory to God. Isn’t bringing glory to God what the gathering of the church is supposed to be about?
From Lew Ayotte’s submission:
When the Assembly of Christ is about building one another up, not dividing over leaders or denominations, focused on recognizing their own leaders, they will inherently be about fulfilling the Great Commission. In fact, I believe following Jesus’ command here may be like second nature to them. They will see the world through His eyes instead of their own. As the Assembly of Christ, reaching our neighbors will not be based on a program, chant, or weekly exercise… it will be according to Christ’s example. Each member in the assembly will recognize their responsibilities, although different, each one has an extremely important role.
From David Blanton’s submission:
Finally, a Jesus Christ ministry cannot help but look like Christ Jesus, the only mirror that is worth measuring itself against. What did the Good Samaritan look like? The parable never gave the listener a physical description because it wasn’t important. The only radical ministry is the one that has Christ Jesus as its center, who said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. If a ministry does that, then it cannot help but look like a Jesus Christ ministry. Does the ministry look forward or backward or does it abstain from the obtuseness of looking anywhere but its center?
From Lionel Woods’ submission:
When the disciples met with Christ, He was modeling community before them. They asked “where are you staying†and He answered “come and seeâ€. From that day forward they lived in a community, sharing, eating, living amongst, and knowing one another. They would have looked at what we giggle at today as a cult. We think that type of life on life is appalling, idiotic, unnecessary, we believe that type of life is too radical, ridiculous, we cling on to our autonomy like it is a right, my friends it is not. We belong to a King. A King who has created us for this community a community to reflect who He is.
From James Lee’s submission:
This aptly demonstrates the need for our ministry to each other and provides a point of commonality that will equip us to be true salt and light in the world while loving each other. We cannot accomplish the tasks of discipleship and proclamation of the Gospel through political agendas, legislated morality, bully pulpits, and sectarian distinctions that scream we are right and you are wrong. We can only accomplish true ministry in this century through the power of Christ, His Holy Spirit, and a love for one another that strengthens us to face the enemy head on, and storm the gates of hell with the victory that was wrought in the spotless Lamb’s blood.
From Christopher Larson’s submission:
Such ministry will seek to avoid the two pitfalls of pragmatism on the one hand and self important hyper-spiritual perfection on the other. it will celebrate the freedom to do many things so that one thing might in the end be done, and it will celebrate all who share that calling as brothers and sisters in the ministry that takes many external forms, but in the end is one, (Pslam 119:63). Our goal will be to always ‘remember Jesus Christ’ in whatever form our work may take, and to know however difficult the path may seem He is Lord and He is not in chains, but freely working in and through us to bring forth a people for Himself, (2 Timothy 2:1-9).
I enjoyed all of the submissions. They all caused me to think about the church of Jesus Christ in the 21st century in different ways. I encourage you to read each of the essays.