This is part 1. It is inspiring for me to watch because I see all these people who are in my spiritual family. Not only am I going to be in heaven with these folks, we are all participating in the same kingdom mission here in the earth. Cool. :)
This is "I Am the Church Part 2". (I posted part 1 a while back). On a related note, there is a great discussion going on at Kingdom Grace in the comments under her post "Mini-church Done Badly?" (a post on house churches, but the discussion encompasses more than that and includes a lot of good insights from a variety of commentors).
Thursday, March 20, 2008
We Are the Church
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Noticed the "We" in your post title - kudos! "I" doesn't make sense.. "we" are the body of Christ.. "we" are the bride of Christ.. "we" need desperately each other.
I agree about the good dialog over at Grace.
Yes, we need each other. But I wouldn't go so far to say that "I" doesn't make sense.
I am still the church, even when no one else is around. Part of being the church is being a temple of the Holy Spirit and being in communion with Him all the time, wherever I am. This doesn't stop when I'm not with other believers...
Are you comfortable saying I am the body of Christ?
If so, more power to you.. if not then how is that different from saying I am the church?
Great question! I think I understand now how we are approaching it from different angles.
You're thinking "church" with a big C as in the universal Church, the Body of Christ.
I'm thinking "church" as the temple, the dwelling place of God. (Rather than being a building as it was in the old covenant, under the new covenant - it is us!)
So, yes, I'm comfortable saying "I am the church" and I am also a part of the Body (Church universal). In that case, I am just one living stone being fitted together with other living stones (through relationship), following Jesus together.
So, you are equating your (bodily) temple with "church"? Are we talking about church as in ekklēsia (translated assembly, church, churches and congregation)? If not what (greek) word are we talking about?
I think the video's message is that God doesn't live in buildings made with human hands (Acts 7). A lot of our cultural understanding of 'church' has caused us to equate the 'church' with buildings built by human hands, or programs/institutions built by human hands.
The problem with that understanding of 'church' is that people then feel like their responsibility (as the ekklesia) is to attend meetings together rather than be the hands of Jesus to the world (in a missional sense).
I think the point of the video is that people are realizing that as temples of the Holy Spirit, God lives in them ('church' as the place God lives) and therefore, they bring 'the church' with them into the world wherever they are.
In this way, "ministry" and "mission" are no longer relegated to professionals, but to all believers. So I think the heart behind the video makers is to show a group of people who are taking responsibility to "be the church" to the world. (In part 1 of this video series, the question is posed at the end of "I am the church" photos is: "What am I doing about that?")
So, it's not that we are talking about a greek word "church" found in scripture, but an English word "church" that has a lot of cultural baggage (regarding it's meaning).
'church' as the place God lives
"an English word "church"
I see our problem.. I am using the word church in accordance with it's dictionary definition. You (and the folks on the video) have made up your own definition of the word (is there a dictionary that supports your definition?) which has caused for the misunderstanding.
One of the cornerstones of communication and language is the definition of words. It is difficult communicating because of our disagreement on the definition of the word church.
So for now I guess we will simply agree to disagree ... joyfully and in love of course :)
K-Bob. Actually, I don't think we disagree. I agree with you that scripture should be the basis for our understanding and the basis for our practice.
In the west, a lot of Christians have a "house of God" mentality about the church (and think of it as the place where God lives). I agree that this is an unhelpful definition. It's not my personally held definition. And it's an underlying assumption that may not be found in a dictionary (but that doesn't mean that a lot of people don't think that way).
But if you're communicating in a context where a lot of people hold that assumption, and you are trying to answer it with an alternative, then you use culturally-appropriate language.
I think you would be happier if the video makers showed people holding signs saying "I am the temple" or "I am the priest." But I think the spirit behind the video is trying to communicate that. (But we don't say: Hey, are you going to temple this Sunday? We say: Are you going to church?) We say that we believe we are the temple of God, and we believe in the priesthood of all believers, but our actions say something else.
Not following you.. maybe you can tell me a bit more about :
"We say that we believe we are the temple of God, and we believe in the priesthood of all believers, but our actions say something else."
What actions are you speaking of?
K-Bob, that's a really good question with a really long answer. I would recommend reading Reggie McNeal's "The Present Future" (I haven't actually read this book, but someone explained to me its contents), and/or "Revolution" by George Barna (this one I have read). There's lots of other books out there that answer that question. It's a big-picture "what does the expression of Christianity/church look like currently in the western world and is it working?" kind of question.
But anyway, did the other statements make sense? Sorry I wasn't clear before. I engage the conversation from my perspective and probably don't always communicate effectively. Thanks for helping me do that better. :)
I think that I see where you are coming from Sarah. My objection in general is about the tendancy of evangelicals to focus on their "personal" relationship to Jesus and basically make everything about them and God - almost to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. Most of what I commented on comes from that perspective.
Happy Monday!
I totally understand that! In America, it tends to be "all about me". (Or, in churches, it can be "all about us" and become inward focused, with little resources going outward toward mission, both in terms of finances, and people moving in their giftedness). But I think that the inward focus is changing as people are starting to be more missional, trying to take responsibility to 'be' the church to a lost and dying world (of course together, alongside other believers - ekklesia/Body is more than one, moving as one).
The extreme on the opposite end of that spectrum is the tendency to think we can only meeting with God when we are with others (or "in church"). There is something to be said for taking responsibility to develop your own intimate walk with Jesus (which someone else can't do for you). I have a tendency to push against that extreme, as I believe that our relationship with Jesus is THE most important foundation, necessary for everything else (John 6 - I am the bread of life).
So we're on the same page, just pushing against opposing extremes. And that in itself is a great picture for the value of ekklesia. Thanks for being part of my 'church' and sharing you heart! :)
"I totally understand that!" Means "Yes! That's right on target! And it concerns me too. (Smiley face)"
I reread my comment, and that first sentence sounded like shouting to me, so I thought I better clarify (lol!). Ah, the limits of written communication...
Post a Comment