September 8, 2010

On his website “Reimagining Church,” Frank Viola has published an interview with himself and Neil Cole. (See “Neil Cole & Frank Viola Discuss Missional Organic Church.”) I love the way they each define “church”:

Neil Cole: In CMA, we have defined church this way: The presence of Jesus among His people, called out as a spiritual family to pursue His mission on this planet. Church begins and ends with Jesus among us. All the typical ingredients listed to describe church were in the upper room in Acts chapter one but the church really began in Acts chapter two when only one other important ingredient was added: the Spirit of God showed up! God among us is what makes us any different from the Elks Club.

Frank Viola: I’ve been using the word “organic church” or “organic expression of the church” for over 16 years. And I give credit to T. Austin-Sparks for the phrase. For Sparks and I, an organic church is a group of Jesus followers who are discovering how to live by Divine life together and who are expressing that life in a corporate way… Consequently, when God’s people learn how to live by the indwelling life of Christ together, a certain expression of community life naturally emerges. So for me, the word “organic” has to do with life – God’s life. The organic expression of the church comes up from the soil; it’s not mechanical. While it has organization (or an expression) – as all living organisms do – the organization (or expression) comes about naturally from the life, not through human manipulation, religious ritual, or legalism.

The entire interview is very good. You should read it.

September 3, 2010

Four years ago, in the early days of this blog, I wrote a series called “Defining the Church.” I should probably re-write that series, because my understanding of the church has changed some as I’ve continued to study Scripture. In that series, I looked at various passages of Scripture to help me define the church. One of the posts (“Defining the Church 4“) dealt with Acts 1-2 and the work of the Holy Spirit in defining the church.

——————————————

Defining the Church 4

So far (Defining the Church part 1, part 2, part 3), we have examined the gospels (Matt 16:15-99, 18:15-20; John 15-17) in order to define the church (εκκλησία = “assembly, community”). The main points are that the church belongs to Jesus and is created by Jesus. He builds the church of those who believe and follow Him, and He promises that death will not defeat the church. Finally, Jesus gathers the church together in order for the church to obey Him, to represent Him, and to demonstrate His character.

In Acts 2:42-47, Luke presents a beautiful image of the church. Many look to this picture to define the church; however, it seems that Luke was showing what happened as a result of believers being the church. In other words, since believers were gathered as the church, they “continued steadfastly in (“were faithful to”, “were devoted to”, “persevered in”) the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Continuing in the Apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers did not MAKE them the church, nor do these activities define the church. Instead, the church, when built and gathered by Christ, will demonstrate these activities, among many others. As an analogy, rain is not defined by the ground being wet; however, when it rains, the ground usually becomes wet.

So, what can we learn from the first two chapters of Acts that will help us define the church? As I read the first two chapters of Acts, there is a theme that may aid us in our study of the church. Notice the passages of Scripture below (emphasis added):

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen… (Acts 1:1-2)

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4-5)

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy…’ ” (Acts 2:14-18)

(Peter still speaking) This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:32-33)

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:37-39)

In summary, Jesus commands the believers to wait in Jerusalem until He sends the Spirit (the Promise from the Father). When Jesus sends the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Peter reminds the crowd that the Spirit was promised by the prophet Joel, and that the Spirit was sent by Jesus. Peter extended Jesus’ promise – which is the Promise of the Father, which is the Holy Spirit – to all who believe, to as many as the Lord our God will call. It is only at this point – after the coming of the Spirit – that Luke describes the result: the church. All believers – the original 120 as well as the 3000 added by God – are now bound together by the same Spirit into the one church of Jesus Christ. Jesus continues to build His church – through His Spirit. Jesus continues to communicate to His church – through His Spirit. Jesus continues to abide with His church – through His Spirit.

Or, as Irenaeus said many years ago: “Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church.”

As Jesus (through His Spirit) gathers together those who believe and follow Him (through His Spirit), those believers will reveal His character, live according to His commands, and represent Him in the world (all through His Spirit).

August 31, 2010

If you followed the link in my previous post “Disregard 1 Corinthians 11-14“, and read the quotes, you probably noticed that the author quoted Emil Brunner’s book The Misunderstanding of the Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953). I thought you might enjoy some excerpt from the Brunner’s preface:

What is the Church? This question poses the unsolved problem of Protestantism. From the days of the Reformation to our own time, it has never been clear how the Church, in the sense of spiritual life and faith – the fellowship of Jesus Christ – is related to the institutions conventionally called churches.

For the Roman Catholic church this problem does not appear to exist at all. Rome presents to the world the face of a church which is certain of itself. But this is only so in appearance; in reality Rome too has no ready answer to the question how the phenomenon visible in the New Testament as the Ecclesia is to be related to the papal church as the latter has developed in the course of centuries; and the uneasiness of those who cannot satisfy themselves with the neat formula that the one has evolved into the other is the less easily appeased the longer it lasts.

In the last 50 or 100 years New Testament research has unremittingly and successfully addressed itself to the task of elucidating for us what was known as the Ecclesia in primitive Christianity – so very different from what is to-day called the Church both in the Roman and Protestant camps. It is, however, a well-known fact that dogmatists and Church leaders often pay small attention to the results of New Testament research, and are only too ready to bridge the gulf between then and now by a handy formula such as that of development, or by appealing to the distinction between the visible and invisible Church, and thus to give a false solution to this grace and distressing problem. But while many theologians and Church leaders are able to quieten their consciences by such formulae, others are so much the more painfully aware of the disparity between the Christian fellowship of the apostolic age and our own “churches,” and cannot escape the impression that there may perhaps be something wrong with what we now call the Church.

For this book has sprung from just this desire to discover the reason why since the Reformation epoch a real solution to the problem of the Church has not been found. The reader will feel, I hope, that behind it lies not merely the impulse to know, but a desire, at least equally strong, to bring into being the true fellowship of Christ. (pg 5-6)

I’m sure that Brunner found many who disagreed with him. There were also probably many who ignored him and carried on with church as usual. I’m also certain that there are many who agree with Brunner, and who desire to study the image of the church as we see it in Scripture. I hope that all of us desire that our study of the church leads to living as the church in a manner that honors God and glorifies Jesus Christ in the Spirit… and that seems to be Brunners concern as well.

August 13, 2010

Three year ago, I wrote a post called “Labels, Adjectives, and Division.” I was just beginning to study and consider how much the church is divided and fractured in the way we live. We are united in Christ, but we fail to live in that unity.

————————————————–

Labels, Adjectives, and Division

Assemblies of God church… Lutheran church… Baptist church… Presbyterian church… Methodist church… Anglican church… Catholic church…

Denominational church… nondenominational church…

Evangelical church… Liberal church… Orthodox church… Conservative church… Emerging church… Missional church…

Mega-church… house church… seeker church… simple church… cell church…

Traditional church… Progressive church… Cutting-edge church… Alternative worship church…

I have read that these labels are very important. The labels and adjectives tell people something about the people that form that particular church. But, to whom are these labels and adjectives meaningful?

Are the labels meaningful for nonbelievers? For the most part, no. There are some people who do not follow Jesus Christ, but who nevertheless know the difference between the various flavors of the many Christian denominations. Some unbelievers probably even know the slight differences between the various types of Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, etc.

But, primarily, these labels and adjectives are used to distinguish one type of Christian from another type of Christian using terms and descriptions that are only meaningful to other Christians. Thus, these labels and adjectives tend to divide God’s family into various groups.

When people use these labels (Please, notice that I said “when”) to exclude brothers and sisters because they do not fit the “label”, then those people are being divisive and are not maintaining the unity of the family of God. Usually, this occurs because people want to congregate with those who are like them. This is not scriptural. We are part of the body of Christ with everyone who has been indwelled with the Spirit of God, whether or not they look like us, talk like us, smell like us, think like us, do like us, etc.

Excluding people because of labels also removes the responsibility and privilege of discipleship from believers. Instead of accepting others who are different from us (like Jesus accepted us) and teaching them how to walk with our Master, we exclude them from fellowship. Yes, discipleship can be difficult and messy this way. But, is anything else really discipleship?

Look at the variety of people that Jesus called disciples: fishermen, a tax collector, a zealot, a friend of the high priest, a thief, even women… unclean women… prostitutes. Jesus welcomed them and encouraged them to follow him. What would have happened if Jesus had excluded people based on labels? He would have ended up with a group of Pharisees following him… and the Pharisees would have been very pleased with this.

The next time you hear a follow of Christ referred to by a label, remember that the person is your brother or sister. You are part of the family of God with them. You need that person and that person needs you. Yes, teach them… but also, listen to them. You may find that God wants to use that person – the person that you might intend to exclude – in order to help you grow closer to him.

June 29, 2010

According to dietitians and nutritionists, a balanced meal consists of a mix of meats, vegetables, fruit, grains, and dairy. They may disagree on the exact mix that makes up a balanced meal, but they generally agree that a person should consume something for all of the different groups. Now, we know that vegetarians don’t eat meat, but they replace the proteins in others ways.

Naturally, a person may eat more of one group at one meal, and more of another food group at another meal. That would be okay, as long as the total is generally balanced.

If a person does not eat from each of the food groups, then the person will not receive all of the nutrients necessary for healthy living.

For example, if a person decided to only eat grains, that person would miss some of the nutrients needed for growth and health. The same if the person only ate meat or vegetables. A mix is important.

Then, there are the foods that have zero (or even negative) nutritional value. When these foods or drinks are consumed, they do not help the person’s growth or health, even though the act of consuming may be similar and even though the calories in the food may make the person feel that he or she is getting something.

I think the church today is alot like people who are eating an imbalanced diet and are often filling themselves with foods that have zero nutritional value. In fact, I think it is all of our responsibility to recognize what a brother or sister is “eating” (consuming) and to suggest a more balanced meal.

In fact, according to Scripture, it is only when the entire church serves their own food group to one another that the church partakes of a balanced meal. This is when the church grows and is healthy (edified).

However, today, it seems that people are not as interested in the nutritional items mentioned in Scripture, and prefer activities and items not mentioned in Scripture that probably have zero nutritional value.

What do you think? Is the modern church partaking in a unbalanced meal?

June 25, 2010

My previous post about “Caffeine Free Diet Coke” reminded me of a post that I wrote about 3 years ago called “Content vs. Container.” The point is a little different. In this post, I ask if we may be more in love with the container than with the content.

——————————————————————-

Content vs. Container

Brother Maynard at “Subversive Influence” has written an interesting post called “The Coca-Cola Packaging Problem“. In this short post, he explains how Coca-Cola changed from glass bottles, to aluminum cans, and finally to plastic bottles. Many prefer the taste of Coca-Cola in glass bottles as opposed to the taste from cans or plastic bottles. Bro. Maynard says:

The sad truth? The taste isn’t any different. I’m sure I could taste the difference, and maybe you could as well… but there genuinely isn’t one. Pour them both in a glass so that the experience of the drink becomes the same, and it will quickly be evident that there is, really and truly, no difference.

You see, the difference was not in the content, but in the container. Whether contained in glass bottles, aluminum cans, or plastic bottles, the content remained Coca-Cola. But people swear by, argue about, complain against, and fume about the difference in taste from one container to another container. Many would suggest that drinking Coca-Cola from a glass is not the same as drinking Coca-Cola from a glass bottle, because they prefer the experience of drinking from the bottle more than they prefer the Coca-Cola itself.

Let’s apply this to the church. Many of us prefer certain “containers” over other “containers”. In fact, we swear by, argue about, complain against, and fume about the difference between the existence of the church from one container or another container. On this blog, I’ve tried to remove any aspect of “containers” from my definition of the church. Because of this, many do not recognize the church as I describe it, because I do not include aspects of their favorite containers.

Could it be that we are enjoying the experience of our “containers” more than we are enjoying the benefits of being part of the church? Can we recognize the difference between the “container” and the “content” of the church? If the church was removed, but the “container” remained, would we notice the difference?

For the most part, these are rhetorical questions. They are helping me think about what it means to be part of God’s church – part of Christ’s body – part of the family gathered together by the Spirit. I hope to learn to love the content more than the container.

June 17, 2010

This week, I’m publishing a few posts on “The Church” which explain the basis of my ecclesiology. In the first post, I said that our understanding of the church must begin with God. (see “The Church: It All Begins with God“) In the second post, I continue from that first point by concluding that our relationship with God and with one another is dependent upon God’s re-creative work, not any work of our own. (see “The Church: God’s Children and God’s Family“) Also, in the third post, I said that our actions are demonstrations of the Father’s character. (see “The Church: The Character of God’s Family“)

Gathering together is one of our actions which demonstrates God’s character. We do not gather because we are the church. Instead, since we are God’s children and family with one another, we desire to be with one another… we desire to gather together with other members of the family. The church does not make us family. The church exists because we are family.

The things that happen when we gather together do not happen because we are church. These things happen because we are individually God’s children and because we are God’s family together. Thus, we love, serve, teach, care, disciple, etc. because we are demonstrating God’s character, not because we are church.

The church starts with God. The church exists because we are God’s children and God’s family. The activities that happen when we gather occur because as God’s children we demonstrate God’s character.

In the epistles, we often see Paul or Peter or James or whoever exhorting the church. Primarily, the purpose of these exhortation was to demonstrate how the people were not demonstrating God’s character in their own lives and as family. This would include demonstrating God’s character to others and demonstrating God’s character to one another.

So, how we act when we gather together is important. But, how we act when we gather together is a reflection of our relationships with God. We do not act a certain way because we are church together. We are church together because we are all part of the family of God. When we are acting as God’s family, we are also relating to one another properly.

Questions about activities when we gather together, or times when we gather together, or places where we gather together, or leaders when we gather together, or any other aspect of our gathering together MUST begin with the REALITY that we are already family, regardless of what we decide about those other issues.

Our relationship to God (and thus with one another) comes before any decisions about activities, times, places, leadership, etc. And, therefore, our relationship to God and one another trumps decisions concerning activities, times, places, leadership, etc.

God re-created us to relate to him and to one another. Because we care about and love one another, we desire to spend time with one another. Because we are God’s children we are family. Since we are family, we desire to spend time with one another. When we act on our relationships with one another and actually gather together, we are God’s church (“assembly”). When we are not gathered together, we remain God’s family.

June 16, 2010

This week, I’m publishing a few posts on “The Church” which explain the basis of my ecclesiology. In the first post, I said that our understanding of the church must begin with God. (see “The Church: It All Begins with God“) In the second post, I continue from that first point by concluding that our relationship with God and with one another is dependent upon God’s re-creative work, not any work of our own. (see “The Church: God’s Children and God’s Family“)

The way we act is defined by who we are. We are God’s children and God’s family, and thus we act as if God is our father. In the Gospels, we see Jesus giving us example after example of what it means to live as God’s children. Since we have been re-created, we have the opportunity and the ability to live as God’s children.

God loves. As his children, then, we also love. We go because God goes and sends. We care because God cares. We give because God gives. We serve because God serves.

When we love, serve, teach, care, etc., we do so because we are God’s children and we have been re-created to imitate our father. We do not become God’s children because we do these things, but we do these things because we are God’s children.

Similarly, we do not do these things (and other things) because we are the church. We are God’s children, and we do these things in demonstration of his character. The character of the family should be a demonstration of the character of the father.

Again, while this may seem obvious, we sometimes delegate this to a side story. If someone goes to another part of the world, they do not go because they are part of the church and the church sent them. They go because God’s cares about the people of that part of the world, and because God has sent them. If someone chooses to take care of a homeless person, they do not do so because the church has a homeless outreach, but because God cares for this person and their concern is a direct reflection of the father’s love.

Finally, this brings us to gathering together. As a family, we gather together. This does not make us family. Instead, gathering together is a demonstration that we are family. We love one another and desire to spend time with one another. That will be the topic for my next post in this series.

June 15, 2010

This week, I’m publishing a few posts on “The Church” which explain the basis of my ecclesiology. In the first post, I said that our understanding of the church must begin with God. (see “The Church: It All Begins with God“)

In particular, I would say that the church is a result of God’s re-creative work, but not a direct result. What do I mean?

The direct result of God’s re-creative work are people who can now rightly relate to God because they have been justified by God and have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the direct result of God’s re-creative work (as was the direct result of God’s creative work) is a new mankind (new creatures, if you will).

So, because God chose to re-create people through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we become children of God. I am a child of God (and you are a child of God) as a direct result of God’s re-creative work.

God’s mission becomes our mission because he is our father. God’s love becomes our love because we are his children. We are all God’s family because of our relationship to him. I realize this last statement seems obvious, but the implications are huge. So, I want to spell it out a little more clearly.

We are family together with one another because we are children of the same father. God is our father, and thus, you and I are brother and/or sister. We cannot choose who is part of our family and who is not part of our family. If God has accepted someone, then we (by default) must accept them as well.

So, before we begin to worry about who we gather with, and how we should gather, and who our leaders are, we must understand who we are to God and to one another. This is the second major point in my ecclesiology.

First, it all beings with God. But, second, and closely related to the first point, we are children of God and, therefore, family with one another. That is, we are family with anyone else who is a child of God. Our relationship with God and our relationship with one another is not dependent upon our work, but upon the re-creative work of God.

June 14, 2010

This week, I’m going to write a few posts on “The Church.” (Ha!) Seriously, I’ve prepared a series to publish this week that explains the basis of my ecclesiology. Now, “ecclesiology” is just a big word that means “understanding of or study of the church.” You see, if you’re simply talking concepts, then ecclesiology can mean “the study of the church.” But, concepts should be put into action, in which case our actions demonstrate what we really understand about the church (or any other topic, for that matter).

So, in our study, our understand, and our actions concerning the church, it must all begin with God. This is where Scripture begins also, right? “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1) Scripture doesn’t attempt to explain God to us, or to prove God to us. Instead, the authors of Scripture accepted the existence of God, lived their life in his existence, and wrote to people who already believed that God existed.

The church begins with God also. We can’t begin to study the church without considering the creative activity of God. For some reason, in his wisdom and power, God chose to create. And, as a final exclamatory act of creation, God made mankind in his image. This image included mankind as male and female, and it included mankind as relational beings. From the beginning, mankind was intended to relate to God and to relate to one another.

When mankind disobeyed God, and when God cursed his creation, God chose to re-create. And, as personal as creation was to God, re-creation was even more personal. As involved as God was in the act of creation, he became even more intimately involved in the act of re-creation.

The church does not exist apart from God, and the church does not exist apart from the intimately personal and ongoing re-creative activity of God.

Studying, or understanding, or living as the church does not begin with a study of the Greek term “ekklesia” or with a proper understanding of scriptural passages. The church begins with God. God creating and re-creating in a way that we can never completely understanding, but in a way that we must trust (have faith). It all begins with God.