http://afcmin.org/ateam/23/the-purpose-of-church-part-ii-what-is-it-for Helping plans come together, one post at a time Sun, 03 May 2015 14:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9 http://afcmin.org/ateam/23/the-purpose-of-church-part-ii-what-is-it-for/comment-page-1#comment-3566 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:30:09 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=23#comment-3566 […] addressed some of these issues more than four years ago (The Purpose of the Church: What is it? And What is it for?), but obviously much more could and should be said. I’ve recently been helping my church […]

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/23/the-purpose-of-church-part-ii-what-is-it-for/comment-page-1#comment-10 Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:30:00 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=23#comment-10 by Anonymous at 04:02AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
It would be a good idea to make the distinction between 'failure' and being 'weak'.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Micah at 07:25AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
Good stuff
(though if the code thing for Tim's blog is annoying, and it is, this registration for here is onerous, though at least it's a one time deal).
Re: Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Face at 09:20AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
Micah–it's good to see you here! Say hi to Julie for me!
Amy Hall
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Bill Ekhardt at 09:29AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
Your implications of what it means to be the body of Christ are dramatically different from mine. So different that I am honestly shocked. I did not realize that any branch of Evangelical Christianity understood this imagery so.
I believe that being the body of Christ means that we as the church should be doing in the world what Christ would be doing. I would call that the exercise, going out and doing in the world. Your definition of excercise seems entirely limited to reading and study.
Tell me, does any part of your eccleseology call the church to act like Christ acted? Wait, I do see some outward calling in the family of God, and the flock of God, ministering first to us, and then to some outside of us, and as sheep (strange analogy I can't picture a sheep being this active) calling other sheep to follow our shepherd. Does this come close to living the outwardly directed life that Jesus lived or taught us to live?
My locus for outward ministry is rooted in my image of the Church as the Body of Christ. We are Christ's hands and feet in the world today. Jesus came not for the righteous, but for the sick, and yet we as the church, the incarnation of Christ's body appear to exist for the righteous with a little 4% of our resources dabling in existing for our needy world. That doesn't sound like the Jesus I read in the Gospels.
In reaction to your summary, any body that fails to be Jesus Christ in our world today fails to be the church.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Murdock at 09:31AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
Michah, I agree. I suppose there's no perfect blogging program. This is the best we could do for free.
Anon, I would put the distinction this way- A community of people who do not make a concentrated effort in each of these areas does not qualify as a church. They may try and not do it well, but at least they're trying. “Churches” who decide to only teach milk and not solid food walk a dangerous line, as do “churches” who have no interest in preaching the truth of the Gospel.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Murdock at 09:42AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
Bill, thank you for your insights. If you read the part where I mention ecercise you'll see that I actually define it as application of Biblical training, not the Biblical training itself. The only way you have the energy to exercise is if you have digested God's Word, so to speak. But if you just sit and eat all day without exercis you'll get fat. (It's not a perfect analogy).
I think the church as the body of Christ and individual members have different responsiblities. Both are Christ unto the world but in different ways. The church is called to be holy, but it can't live a holy life. What I've outlined here is how I see the Bible describing what it means for the church to be Christ unto the world. In some ways for the individual it will be similar, in others it will be different. Regardless, to just say the church should be Christ in the world doesn't help much unless we unpack that to say what it means to be Christ in the world. This is what I've tried to do here.
Where'd you get the 4% figure? I would think it would be more, though I agree there's much more we could, and should, do. Thanks Bill!
Re: Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Bill Ekhardt at 11:47AM (PST) on Mar 11, 2005
I guess, then I would unpack it differently. I would unpack it as the we the church getting outside of the CHristian commuinty and making an impact in our world. We could spell out what kind of impact that would be more clearly. Obviously evangelism is in the forefront. I think this is more than rightly proclaiming the word. It would involve looking at our commuinties as Jesus would, seeing their needs and reaching them as Jesus did. Now I don't want to make all of the churches work into social justice- and absolutely not social justice detached from our identiy as the body of Christ, as people working on behalf of, in the name of and in the power of Jesus Christ.
The 4% is just my skeptical assesment of how little of our resources and energy end up going toward reaching the world around us as Jesus did.
Re: Re: Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Bill Ekhardt at 08:06AM (PST) on Mar 12, 2005
I regret the harshness of my prior tone, Roger. I am coming to understand better who you are, where you are in your career (I read your bio) and what you are seeking to do. I am sorry that I've spoken so strongly.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Micah at 05:26AM (PST) on Mar 12, 2005
Hi Amy, good site here, Julie says hello too!
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Murdock at 05:30PM (PST) on Mar 12, 2005
Maybe it's because I don't tend to take things personally, but I don't think you have anything to apologize for. I get far more offended when a girl wont let me pay for her than if someone strongly disagrees with me. I appreciate the gesture though, I was beginning to think you didn't like me
While I think “social justice” is generally a good thing, I'm not sure that it's required of the church community. The other activities I've listed in the post seem more clearly defined Biblically. (This may be different for individuals, I trying to keep the eye on the church here.) But while I don't see a clear strong Biblical mandate for “social justice”, I'm all for churches engaging in it. My fear is that social action will be seen as more necessary than preaching God's Word/The Gospel, which is what I suspect is already the case when I hear some of emergent (like McLaren). I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that some think it's better to feed a tribe than teach them Christ.
Re: Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Bill Ekhardt at 12:44AM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
It sounds to me like you fear the emerging church is liberal, like the liberal movements of the past. I think you will find that the Emerging church, while not fitting well with John Piper, RC Sprowl, or Josh McDowel, does not fit into a liberal box.
I believe Emergent is seeking to recover the gospel rather than dismiss it, find more effective ways to communicate it, rather than exchange it for social justice. On the other hand, Emergent does believe that a primary method of communicating our faith is by living it out and inviting others to participate in it.
I have felt how you feel. I have have been in the past suspicious of liberal groups who I felt really only cared about being nice and loving, and did not genuinely care about Jesus Christ and his salvation for us. I don't have these suspicions of the Emerging Church. Surely it will make mistakes and over correct, but in the swing it may discover some very valuable things not only in our efforts to engage people in Western culture, but also how to more faithfully be the church.
Re: Re: Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Murdock at 01:03AM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
I'm all for learning how to more faithfully be the church and how to engage people in Western culture. I do think Emergent often raises good questions. It's the answers that are sometimes given that concern me. Through the process of answering the questions, whether we agree or disagree, I think we'll be better off.
I doubt Emergent fits into a liberal box. But I also can help but feel like I'm reading Schleiermacher sometimes when I read Emergent. Even if it's not that far liberal, what boundaries are in place keep it from going that far? To have any boundary seems contrary to Emergent.
I agree as well that a primary way of communicating the Gospel is to live it. This is something Protestantism, at least, has always taught. Perhaps we haven't been good at it, but it's been taught- it's not new to Emergent. I'm still trying to figure out what Emergent means by “inviting others to participate in it.” Spencer Burke said that we should invite others into our community to learn our language. That deeply troubles me- if the Gospel is no more than language we're still dead in our sins. However, I don't take this to be normative for Emergent, I'm still trying to figure it out.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Tyler Watson at 01:02PM (PST) on Mar 13, 2005
I don't think one can separate proclamation from social action or social action from proclamation. Not to prooftext, but Mt 25.31-46 seems to me to be a strong command to participate in social justice (and this is just one text of many). Jesus' descriptions of his ministry in Lk 4.16-21 and Mt 11.1-6 hold together social justice and proclamation together rather nicely. Leaning too far in either direction is dangerous and unbiblical in my opinion. Some conservative Evangelical Christians care only for preaching and having people believe in their minds, but do little to care for the very real suffering of the people they minister to. Other Christians, namely some (not all) in the Liberation camp, hold that preaching the gospel doesn't matter – what matters is the contemporary alleviation of injustice and suffering now. Both groups, while having good intentions, make errors in my opinion. Jesus preached the good news and fed the five thousand. These were not distinctly separate activities, but were both integral to his ministry.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Murdock at 01:14PM (PST) on Mar 13, 2005
That's ultimately my point, that social action should not be divorced from the proclamation of the Gospel. This is what I see some who emphasize social action doing (like McLaren). But even for those in emergent who are holding social action and proclamation together, this isn't new. The church has been doing this for centuries, at least. We've set up relief organizations like World Vision and medical drives around the world. It has, from my perspective, been dying out over the past decade or two, but for the large part the Protestant and Catholic churches have done well in integrating the two. I would rather say some conservative Evangelical Christians care only for preaching and having people believe in the hearts- as Mark Noll said, “The scandal of the Evangelical mind is there is no Evangelical mind.” Thanks Tyler.
Re: The Purpose of Church Part II: What is it for?
by Tyler Watson at 09:23AM (PST) on Mar 14, 2005
I think we're pretty much on the same page, though I would say that social justice is required of the church. The issue I see is that there is a pendulum and whenever there is a correction, we like to swing the pendulum too far in the corrective direction. Many conservatives responded to the social gospel by removing anything from their theology that smacked of such an idea. They threw out the baby with the bath water. Similarly, many are rediscovering Jesus' teaching on social action and are reacting against the head-faith only response of a few decades ago. (There are deeper, more theological and philosophical roots for these stances, but I won't go into them here.) In my reading of McLaren I don't think he's thrown out the verbal, cognitive, affective message of belief in the gospel as he emphasizes the praxis of the Christian faith. The Story We Find Ourselves In is a retelling of the entire gospel story and is a worthwhile read (despite the fact that the title ends in a preposition). Like you, Roger, I would question any “gospel” that does not contain an affirmation of Jesus as Christ, that is, a gospel that does not reorient our allegiance and worship. Similarly I would question any “gospel” that does not contain some reorientation of our lived-out practices, that does not challenge the status quo of power structures, including racial, economic, gender, political structures.

]]>