Skip to content

July 9, 2010

6

From the imonk…

by Aaron

“So I’d be very careful with the idea that only the most self-defined, formally recognized institutions get to make the call on what qualifies as Jesus’ movement. I resonate with the Lutheran understanding that the church exists where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered. I see all sorts of smaller movements leading up to or participating in that definition. Jesus sees his church in a gathering of two or three followers, and he sometimes doesn’t see it in the biggest church in town. So think like Jesus and have some humility on this subject. I encourage each of us to pray: “Lord show me your church as you see it.”…

“I want every Christian to find a Jesus-shaped community that is doing what the New Testament says a church should do. I don’t believe the Christian life happens entirely at church or is determined by what churches decide to do. Christians follow Jesus into the world as disciples on the mission Jesus gave us. The best churches facilitate the mission of Jesus and grow Jesus-followers who pursue that mission.”
-Michael Spencer, Mere Churchianity, pg 213.

Other posts you should check out:

  1. Is mission the mother of theology?
  2. Scattered thoughts on Driscol's final thoughts, or don't spend your crazy weather on self recognition.
Read more from Church, Jesus, Spirituality
  • http://thehogshead.org Travis Prinzi

    The overall sentiment is right on. If I can give a little picky push-back on a point, though: Jesus never defines the "church" as where two or more are gathered. In fact, he clearly distinguishes between the two in Matthew 18, where he tells us to take two or three people with us to confront an offending brother, and if he doesn't repent, then take it to the church. Jesus clearly saw some institutional difference between a gathering of two or three of his followers, and the actual church.

    I really gotta finish reading this book. Everything I've read so far is fantastic.

  • http://culturalsavage.com Aaron

    @Travis Prinzi, I can appreciate your push-back on the point. Let me offer this push-back to your push-back: Matthew 18.15-17 seems to be prescriptive for living in unity and forgiveness rather than descriptive of the point a gathering of believers becomes "a church".

    The word we translate as "church" in this passage is "Ekklesia", which means an assembly. Jesus seems to use it here to indicate that after we go to the brother with 2 or 3 witnesses, we are to bring the offending brother before a larger congregation (assembly, gathering) of believers in hopes of bringing about repentance. This congregation may or may not be your "church". It might be respected Christians from your area, or perhaps a gathering of mutual christian friends.

    In 18.20 (just a few verses later) Jesus does announce that whenever any of the believers gather together (even as few as two or three), he is there with them. The word "ekklesia) is never mentioned in this phrase, however, from the context Jesus does seem to imply that the power he is vesting in his church is present and active *whenever* believers gather together in his name. That spells church to me.

  • http://www.arsgratia.com Jason Blair

    I'm not sure we need to worry so much about the two or three versus a congregation. When Jesus was speaking to the disciples, they would of course understand ekklesia in the sense of an assembly (which is literally what the word means). Most of the time, that was a local village assembly in a synagogue. There was also the sense of a larger assembly when the nation was called to gather at the Temple.

    What may be more important to consider is that the vast past of Jesus' teaching was about the immanent kingdom of God. A consequence of that is the destruction of the Temple will happen, that the people of God is now the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that such a centralized place is no longer needed for God's people.

    The purpose of synagogue was to point to Temple (or the idea of it in the case of Babylonian exile), and was never supposed to be a permanent institution, nor was it ever proscribed by the Law.

    When we come to Paul's use of ekklesia, it also did not specifically refer to a synagogue-like assembly, though certainly many churches were birthed out of them. It is only in the late second century and later that we see the institutionalization of church in this way.

    This isn't to say that churches are bad, or denominations, or organizations, or whatever. But it's also notable that such a thing is never commanded. They're convenient, but what it far more important is the people of God's kingdom assembling to worship, and that can happen anywhere.

    But leaving all the academic debate aside, Travis does raise what I think is a valid critique. Michael wrote a book that is for specific people at a specific time. Mere Churchianity is very much for those who have good reason to be disallusioned with traditional church, specifically an evangelicalism that sold its love for the Bible and exchanged it for a model of "church" that looks more like American culture than Christ.

    There is a timeless element to Mere Churchianity, and it lies in the devotional aspect of the book – the part that calls people back to devotion to Christ. For that alone, I hope it is remembered.

    • http://culturalsavage.com Aaron

      @Jason Blair, Good point. Michael did write that book out of a specific time and place. I agree that the call back to devotion to Jesus is timeless, and I hope that's what people remember and hear.

      I guess I just get a bit defensive (still) with this discussion about what "church" is. I'm not against denominations, church structures, or anything like that… I've just given up on them (for the most part) being the defining source of church. When I hear someone say, "a couple of people gathered in the name of Jesus isn't a real church" my hackles get raised. Too much baggage from my own journey.

  • http://thehogshead.org Travis Prinzi

    It's hard for me to accept that this "We don't need no structure" point of view comes from anything other than our postmodern tendency to prefer that. I don't know how one reads St. Paul or Jesus and concludes that nothing resembling an institution is commanded – unless authentic and organic gatherings are supposed to be characterized by hierarchies of leadership (1 Tim, Titus), rules for order (1 Cor 14), rules for administration of discipline (Mt. 18, 1 Cor 5, 1 Cor 11).

    I'm not saying two or three people gathered can't be a church. I'm just saying a church isn't defined that way anywhere in Scripture. The church is the assembly, a specific assembly constituted in a certain way (baptized believers in communion with God and one another and accountable to some type of formalized leadership).

  • http://thehogshead.org Travis Prinzi

    That wasn't worded correctly. I mean to say, "Unless authentic/organic gatherings are always characterized by hierarchies of leadership (1 Tim, Titus), rules for order (1 Cor 14), rules for administration of discipline (Mt. 18, 1 Cor 5, 1 Cor 11)," and an "institution" is something without those things altogether.

    I think your comment subscription plugin is twitchy. I'm not getting notified when new comments come in. Also, why does it want me to subscribe to a post from The Hog's Head? ("McKellan May Quit Hobbit")