Of course we’re not igoring the people… we’re singing and preaching to them!
My friend Dan at “Some Church Stuff” wrote another thought-provoking post called “Search: Go To Church Ignore.”
His post was inspired by a search string that landed someone on his site: “go to church ignore.” In the post, Dan answers the question, “What can be ignored when we ‘go to church’?” Then, he follows it up with a question/answer of his own: “What do people usually ignore / not ignore when they ‘go to church’?”
Here are his answers:
Here’s a list of what I think is ok to ignore at church:
- Sermons
- Music
- Tithes/Offering
- People’s clothes/hair/jewelery
- The pastor’s coffee breath
- The beautiful decorations and flowers
- The Christian and American Flags
And probably what you shouldn’t ignore:
- The other people
Now here is what people usually don’t ignore:
- Sermons
- Music
- Tithes/Offering
- People’s clothes/hair/jewelery
- The pastor’s coffee breath
- The beautiful decorations and flowers
- The Christian and American Flags
And what they normally do ignore:
- The other people
Make sure you jump over to Dan’s post so that you don’t miss anything.
But, you know, in reality, most people would disagree that they ignore “the other people” when they “go to church.” In fact, don’t we do singing and preaching because of the other people?
But, that kinda misses the point. Doing things for an audience of “the other people” is not the same thing as listening to, learning from, caring about, and sharing life with “the other people.”
What do you think? What would happen among churches if we actually didn’t ignore “the other people”?
The Pilgrim Church: The whole church cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place
Yesterday, in a comment on another post, Chuck from “Being Filled” mentioned a book that I had not heard of before but which is available free online: The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent.
The book has the following subtitle: “Being some account of the continuance through succeeding centuries of churches practising the principles taught and exemplified in the New Testament.”
Unfortunately, I haven’t had time to read much of this book, but I did read a page or two. And, at the very beginning (the third and fourth paragraph), I read this:
As this body, the whole Church of Christ, cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place, since many of its members are already with Christ and others scattered throughout the world, it is appointed to be actually known and to bear its testimony in the form of churches of God in various places and at different times. Each of these consists of those disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in the place where they live, gather together in His Name. To such the presence of the Lord in their midst is promised and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is given in different ways through all the members (Matt. 18.20; 1 Cor. 12.7).
Each of these churches stands in direct relationship to the Lord, draws its authority from Him and is responsible to Him (Rev. 2 and 3). There is no suggestion that one church should control another or that any organised union of churches should exist, but an intimate personal fellowship unites them (Acts 15.36).
Like I said, I haven’t read much more than this in the book, but I have an idea that this quote tells us quite a bit about the focus of Broadbent’s book (the lack of “organized union of churches” for example). So far, I like his foci:
- Believers that are scattered around the world.
- All disciples of Jesus Christ in one area united together.
- Each church under the authority of Jesus Christ alone.
- A church connected to one another through fellowship and relationships.
Of these various concepts, I only see the first one actively displayed today. We recognize generally that believers are scattered around the world. But, we rarely see all disciples in one are united together, acting under the authority of Jesus Christ alone, and connected to one another through fellowship and relationship.
In fact, while we recognize believers scattered around the world today, we typically accept that we are also scattered locally as well. And, for the most part, we’re happy with that.
You see, when Broadbent writes, “[T]he whole Church of Christ cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place,” he means that we are scattered around the world. But, today, we would have to say that “the whole Church of Christ cannot be seen and connection act in any one place” – in any one location – because we are divided from one another and refuse to unite in the Spirit of God.
It makes me wonder… whatever divides me from brothers and sisters in Christ is something that I’m submitting to instead of submitting to God.
What books about the church have you enjoyed reading?
I’ve read many books about the church. I got something out of almost all of them that I’ve read. (Actually, I may have gotten something out of all of them, but I’m not certain… so I said “almost all.”)
I’ve read books that were written from a more organic/simple perspective, and I’ve read books that were written from a more institutional/organizational perspective. I’ve read books about the church from the perspective of many different denominations and philosophies and religious traditions. Again, I’ve learned something from them, and I’m glad that I’ve read widely when it comes to the church.
My friend Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” gave us his list of “Top Ten Books About The Church” last week. This is his list (in alphabetical order):
Biblical Church
The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
House Church: Simple, Strategic, Scriptural
Mere Churchianity
Pagan Christianity?
Reimagining Church
Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community
What is the Mission of the Church?
When the Church Was a Family
Your Church is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church
He also includes the following as “honorable mentions”:
Brothers, We Are Not Professionals
Finding Organic Church
Houses That Change the World
The Jesus Paradigm
The Normal Christian Church Life
Outgrowing the Ingrown Church
The Rabbit and the Elephant
I’ve read most of these books, and I agree that they are all good in their own way.
But, now, Eric is asking for our help. He’s asked, “What’s Your Favorite Book About the Church?”
In a comment on his post, I added the following to his list: Peterson’s Engaging With God, Banks’ Paul’s Idea of Community, and Girard’s Brethren, Hang Loose and Brethren, Hang Together. I also later agreed with other commenters that Bonhoeffer’s Life Together and some of Snyder’s books are very good. (Yeah, you knew that I couldn’t just offer one book, right?)
But, what books would you add to the lists above? What books about the church have you enjoyed reading? Which books have challenged your thinking (in a good way) even if you disagreed with the author?
Share some books here, then jump over to Eric’s post and share them with him as well.
Guest Blogger: The abolition of social distinctions among the church
I’ve invited people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Theo. You can connect with Theo via Twitter (@TheosJourney).
——————————————-
The Abolition of Social Distinctions Among the Church
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man.” (James 2:1-6)
I have been wondering lately, how many poor people can be found in pulpits, elderships, positions of church leadership, in councils and boards of christian organisations… and by extension how do we apply in practise the passage above in our communities, what values do our ways portray and to what degree those are representative of our Lord, communicating all the right messages about Him, in a world where we have been called to be His ambassadors and our communities a foretaste of what His reign in our world will mean.
To what degree our requirements of a higher educational level and professional success (high social standing) can exist without “becoming judges with evil motives” making “distinctions” amongst ourselves and “dishonouring” the poor whom God has chosen and lifted up, for His glory?
Were these requirements natural and expected from the beginning of the Church or something that was added down the line?
If we were to try and justify the necessity of such distinctions, based on modern reality, then how would we understand and apply the teaching that before God – in relation to salvation (the highest providence) – and thus within His Church, there is now not to be any distinction based on racial, social or gender grounds?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)
The love meals (agapes) of the first Church were a way to publicly state the complete lack of social distinctions. For the semiology of the time the fact that there were no honouring places at the table (they would all sit together) and there were no special meal portions for the distinguished individuals (they would all eat the same) was a very public and scandalous way of revealing plainly this truth, to everybody around.
This abolition of social distinctions, was scandalous to such a degree that a strife was created within the church (between the rich and the poor, 1 Cor. 11:18-22) and so Paul had to give us the teaching which we remember during the Lord’s Supper. A teaching I have never heard being interpreted rightly within its context.
I remind that the passage was written to deal with the issue of “…or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (v.22)
And concludes with… “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another — if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home — so that when you come together it will not be for judgement. About the other things I will give directions when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
So, given the flow of thought and being part of it, what do these verses mean?
Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)
Scripture… As We Live It #227
This is the 227th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands bowing their heads and closing their eyes without anger or quarreling agreeing with the pastoral prayer… (1 Timothy 2:8 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Community is Always Living but Never Arriving
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Always Living but Never Arriving.” When we think about community – even community in Christ – we should not think of it as something that we finally arrive at. Instead, it’s something that we always live… even in our imperfection. In fact, it’s living through the imperfections that we find deeper community in Christ. Unfortunately, many are looking for instant community or a completed community… and they won’t find it.
—————————-
Always Living but Never Arriving
Recently, while reading Lionel’s post “Pros and Cons of ‘Organic’ Church Meeting: Part 1 Cons,” I began thinking about living in community with others. You see, the thing about community is that we never “arrive.” At least, our community never becomes a perfect group of perfect people. There are always struggles.
Of course, this seems obvious, doesn’t it. But, it is always somewhat counter-intuitive. We get the feeling that if we put enough time into this thing we call community – if we live with one another like family for long enough – then life together will become easy.
In truth, we will always struggle with one another, primarily because we will always struggle with sin. I mean, think about it, even if I manage to go a day living in perfect harmony with God and others, chances are that others will not live perfect lives that day. And, on days when everyone else is living completely in obedience to God, I’m the one who has problems.
You see, we need one another, but the fact that we live together means that we will constantly struggle with one another, both because of our own sinfulness and self-centeredness, and also because of the sin and selfishness of others.
If we come together with one another with the false assumption that one day we will have perfect community, then we will be in for a rude awakening. As people change – their life circumstances – so will our community. As people move into or out of the area, our community will change. As children are born or parents die, the community will be different. There will constantly be new challenges and struggles.
So, we don’t live for that day when our community finally “makes it.” No, we live for today. We share today with one another. When someone fails, we forgive them. When we fail we ask for forgiveness. But, we keep living together, trusting in the presence and grace of God to bring us closer to one another and to him.
We must stop looking forward to that time when we can finally live in community. Instead, we must decide whether or not we’re going to share our lives with someone else today. If we choose to share our life with someone today, it won’t be perfect, but it will be a step toward more fellowship with one another – which, in John’s words, is more fellowship with the Father and with his son, Jesus Christ.
Is it possible for children to be homeschooled and missional?
Scot at “The Jesus Creed” posted an interesting question/response in his post “Homeschooled and Missional? Absolutely!”
In the post, a reader named Helen Lee is responding to another blogger who suggests that homeschooling, by definition, is anti-missional. By the way, by the term “missional,” I’m talking about God’s mission of redeeming the world and how he works through us.
At one point, Helen makes the following statement:
First of all, homeschooling one’s children does not automatically result in an anti-missional lifestyle any more than sending one’s children to public schools guarantees a missional one. It doesn’t matter what type of school your children attend. The greatest influence on a child’s life that will determine how missional he or she becomes is whether or not that child’s parents are living a missional lifestyle themselves.
Last year, I wrote a post called “Raising missional homeschooled children.” That turned out to be a very popular post, even though all I did was link to another post on the subject – a post written by a friend of mind called “Missional Homeschooling.” Although I didn’t say too much in my post, I left the following comment on the original post:
The first and most important thing we realized is that we can’t raise missional children if we are not missional ourselves. Second, we took our children with us when we served others, whether it was across the street or across the world.
As disciplers of our children (hopefully, not the only disciplers, but disciplers none-the-less), the way that we (as parents) interact with others will affect how our children interact with others, both positively and negatively.
Do you want to raise missional homeschooled (or public schooled or private schooled) children? Then live a missional life yourself, following Jesus as he desires to use you to impact the world around you for his kingdom.
Consensus among the church… just wishful thinking?
- Introduction
- Episcopal
- Presbyterian
- Congregational
- Scriptural Evidence
- The Problem
- Moving Forward
- From Experience
A couple of year ago, I wrote a series on the topic of Church Polity. You can see the links to the posts in that series above.
In almost every instance, the question of polity arises in the context of making decisions as a church. Occasionally, the concept of polity is also seen as overlapping the issue of authority among the church. In that series, I first stepped through the definitions, scriptural evidences, and scriptural problems with the concepts of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational polities (governments).
I suggested that when turning to Scripture to support any of these polities, there are problems:
So far, in order to support any type of church polity, we must ignore the fact that there is no direct evidence, ignore passages that indicate indirectly other forms of church polity, and ignore the fact that polity is not important in any of the writings of the New Testament.
But, there is one more thing that we must ignore exegetically. We must ignore what Scripture says about all believers; things like the fact that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit or all believers have the mind of Christ. We must ignore the fact that believers are to submit to one another. (I would assume this includes leaders? Even bishops? Even the presbyters?) We must ignore that believers are to consider others (and the opinions and desires of others) as more important than themselves. (I would assume this would include the majority versus the minority.)
Then, I suggested that there is another way forward, a way that does not include episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational polity: consensus. I admitted that seeking consensus among a group of believers can be impractical and often time consuming. But, still, I believe that consensus – the entire church working together to come to a decision – best describes what we read about the church in Scripture.
Recently, I noticed that the series above gets quite a few hits (through various search engines). People reach that series by searching for “episcopal church polity,” or “presbyterian church polity,” or “congregational church polity.” Sometimes, combined search strings such as “episcopal presbyterian congregational” hit that series.
But, you know what I haven’t noticed? Very few people are searching for information about consensus. I thought there may be a few reasons for this:
1) People are using a different term other than “consensus.”
2) People interested in consensus are not searching for information.
3) People don’t think consensus is a viable option.
(Perhaps there are other reasons as well…)
But, I wonder, what do you think about consensus? Is it possible that a group of Christians can come together and make decisions by consensus? Or, is this just wishful thinking… idealism… too impractical?
A church puzzle
Chuck at “Being Filled” has offered what I think is a great analogy in his post “Just One Piece of the Puzzle.”
Chuck got the idea from a lyric in a song. In his analogy, the whole church is a jigsaw puzzle, and each of us are pieces of that puzzle.
Based on this analogy, Chuck makes the following observations:
- Puzzle pieces do not get to choose where they are placed. They simply go where the assembler puts them.
- Puzzle pieces are only responsible for connecting with the few others placed directly around them.
- Puzzle pieces cannot see the big picture from their perspective. They must trust the assembler to place them properly.
- Should a puzzle piece try to correct another section of the puzzle, it would have to leave its own proper place to do so.
- A single piece out of place makes the puzzle incomplete.
Like I said, I think this is a good analogy and these are good observations. (Obviously, all analogies fall apart at some point.)
What do you think about Chuck’s analogy? What do you think about his observations? Does the analogy or any of the observations bring any certain Scripture passages to mind?
The family of God in Ephesians
In my previous post on Ephesians 1:3-14 (“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…“), I examined the structure of that long sentence and concluded that the spiritual blessings that Paul discusses are based on the fact that God has chosen us for adoption as his children. Because we are adopted by God in Jesus Christ, 1) we have redemption through his blood, 2) we have received an inheritance, and 3) we were sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Within that long sentence (Ephesians 1:3-14), Paul uses several terms to refer to our relationship as children of God: “adoption as sons,” “inheritance” (twice), and perhaps “guarantee.” But, these are not the only references in the Book of Ephesians as our status as children in God’s family.
For example, consider these passages:
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God… (Ephesians 2:19 ESV)
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Ephesians 3:6 ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family [the whole family] in heaven and on earth is named… (Ephesians 3:14-15 ESV)
…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:6 ESV)
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. (Ephesians 5:1 ESV)
There are other passages in Ephesians that I could point out, such as other places where Paul refers to God as Father or when he refers to others as “brothers” or “sisters.” But, even from the passages above, it is clear that our relationship with God with him as father and with us as his children is very important to Paul and important to the point(s) that he wants to make in this letter.
I think it’s important for us to realize how fundamental this is to Paul (and, I would suggest, for the other authors of the New Testament as well). Of course, this idea didn’t originate with Paul or with Peter or with James or with any of the the other early followers of Jesus.
No, the importance of recognizing one another as God’s family originated with Jesus himself. Here is just one passage in which Jesus explains this to his followers:
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV)
Perhaps one of the most amazing (to me) passages related to our relationship with God as his children is found in the book of Hebrews:
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brothers… (Hebrews 2:11 ESV)
God deals with us as his children, and he expects us to interact with one another as brothers and sisters. This relationship was foundational for Paul, and if we live with one another recognizing God as our common Father and recognizing all in his family as our brothers and sisters, it would change the way we interact with one another.