So what the heck was I trying to say with my little epic in the last post? My hope was to begin laying a foundation that helps us understand where the church began, and where it has come from those beginnings.
For three centuries, these bands of brothers and sisters flocked in informal communities, sharing in common their love, their lives, and their worship of God. For some, the patterns of their lives changed drastically. Paul, for example, went from the up-and-coming Sandhedrin leader (the Sanhedrin was the ruling council of Jewish leaders) helping expose and eliminate "followers of the Way" to one who travelled the known world to share the message. But there were many others, perhaps even the majority, whose normal patterns, their daily comings and goings, didn't change so much, because God didn't call everyone to be like Paul and travel the world for the gospel. For those folks, what changed was how they saw God in those daily patterns, and how the eternal kind of life, the life that is experienced only in obedience to God (note that Jesus' early followers were not followers of a theology, or even followers of Jesus, but followers of the Way--it was a way of life) became their normal experiences as they went to work, raised their kids, and loved their neighbors.
So, for our discussion here, I'm saying that the church is a group of people who are committed to one another in their relationships and are together trying to follow the Way of Jesus in the world.
What else is required to be a church? What is the church's mission; why are we here? Check out future posts!
3 comments:
Arnie, I actually agree with much of what you've said! It is true that that much of what we see "played" as church today is more the result of "American religion," borrowing from different traditions that have influenced different church leaders. I do happen to believe that there are distinctives that should be the marks of a Christian church ... the things that diffirentiate a church from a "support" group, from a "social" group, from a 'religious" group, etc. What are these distinctives? I think the key is (no surprise) the Scriptures. Keep in mind that Christ, the teacher you so much speak off, never wrote anything. All we know he said is through the writings of those He discipled, namely John, Peter, Paul and others. They (the apostles) are the interpreters of Christ ... as He commisioned them. Eph. 2:20 say that, even as Christ is the cornerstone, their writings are the foundation ... along with the Prophets (OT). This is why I think Scripture is so crucial. We can look at Acts (historical narrative) and see how and what did the Apostles preached. In the Epistles (didactive literature) we learn about church order, etc. (i.e. the ordinaces, Elders (pastors), deacons, church discipline, how they defended the faith, etc.). I would also add that tradition, as you said, is important ... not infallible ... but important. So, what are these "marks" that make or distinguishe a church? That of course is debatable (and I can give you my opinion) ... but I think there is no doubt that there are some things that are part of a "regulative principle" that disntinguish the church (out of Scripture and then tradition) from any other religious or socual group.
Arnie, I actually agree with much of what you've said! It is true that that much of what we see "played" as church today is more the result of "American religion," borrowing from different traditions that have influenced different church leaders. I do happen to believe that there are distinctives that should be the marks of a Christian church ... the things that differentiate a church from a "support" group, from a "social" group, from a 'religious" group, etc. What are these distinctives? I think the key is (no surprise) the Scriptures. Keep in mind that Christ, the teacher you so much speak off, never wrote anything. All we know he said is through the writings of those He discipled, namely John, Peter, Paul and others. They (the apostles) are the interpreters of Christ ... as He commissioned them. Eph. 2:20 say that, even as Christ is the cornerstone, their writings are the foundation ... along with the Prophets (OT). This is why I think Scripture is so crucial. We can look at Acts (historical narrative) and see how and what did the Apostles preached. In the Epistles (didactive literature) we learn about church order, etc. (i.e. the ordinances, Elders (pastors), deacons, church discipline, how they defended the faith, etc.). I would also add that tradition, as you said, is important ... not infallible ... but important. So, what are these "marks" that make or distinguish a church? That of course is debatable (and I can give you my opinion) ... but I think there is no doubt that there are some things that are part of a "regulative principle" that distinguish the church (out of Scripture and then tradition) from any other religious or social group.
Arnie, I actually agree with much of what you've said! It is true that that much of what we see "played" as church today is more the result of "American religion," borrowing from different traditions that have influenced different church leaders. I do happen to believe that there are distinctives that should be the marks of a Christian church ... the things that differentiate a church from a "support" group, from a "social" group, from a 'religious" group, etc. What are these distinctives? I think the key is (no surprise) the Scriptures. Keep in mind that Christ, the teacher you so much speak off, never wrote anything. All we know he said is through the writings of those He discipled, namely John, Peter, Paul and others. They (the apostles) are the interpreters of Christ ... as He commissioned them. Eph. 2:20 say that, even as Christ is the cornerstone, their writings are the foundation ... along with the Prophets (OT). This is why I think Scripture is so crucial. We can look at Acts (historical narrative) and see how and what did the Apostles preached. In the Epistles (didactive literature) we learn about church order, etc. (i.e. the ordinances, Elders (pastors), deacons, church discipline, how they defended the faith, etc.). I would also add that tradition, as you said, is important ... not infallible ... but important. So, what are these "marks" that make or distinguish a church? That of course is debatable (and I can give you my opinion) ... but I think there is no doubt that there are some things that are part of a "regulative principle" that distinguish the church (out of Scripture and then tradition) from any other religious or social group.
Post a Comment