mind blowing quote

[Sarah Smith]

I wasn't sure if this belongs here, in theology, or in prayer and praise as I probably will need prayer as I chew on this quote.

I'm reading "Houses that can change the world." Got it free, and have friends planting house churches so I thought I would read it.

I'm not sure I "buy" all it is selling, but this quote has really got me thinking:

"The Bible absolutely does not teach us to say that a holy crowd gathering on a holy day at a holy hour in a holy sanctuary to participate in a holy ritual performed by holy men in holy clothes for a holy fee is a New Testament church."

Opinions?

[Kevin Rector]

"The Bible absolutely does not teach us to say that a holy crowd gathering on a holy day at a holy hour in a holy sanctuary to participate in a holy ritual performed by holy men in holy clothes for a holy fee is a New Testament church."

How about we rewrite it to be a bit more gracious:

"The Bible absolutely does not teach us to say that a holy crowd gathering on a holy day at a holy hour in a holy sanctuary to participate in a holy ritual performed by holy men in holy clothes for a holy fee is not a New Testament church."

Amazing the difference that one word can make, eh?

[Sarah Smith]

Amazing, yes, but not sure it is more gracious. Either the whole holy people/place/ritual/fee thing IS a NT church or it is not. The author contends not, sound like you contend is, and at this point I think I would contend "may be part of".

[Duane Maynard]

the whole holy people/place/ritual/fee thing IS a NT church or it is not. .

Whether or not it is a NT Church or just a bunch of show depends on what happens when they get to the house you allude to. I am sure the neighborhood could answer whether or not!

[Jon Bemis]

"The Bible absolutely does not teach us to say that a holy crowd gathering on a holy day at a holy hour in a holy sanctuary to participate in a holy ritual performed by holy men in holy clothes for a holy fee is a New Testament church."

Opinions?

Sounds rather ungracious. Just as ungracious as saying "The Bible absolutely does not teach us to say that a few people gathering in someone's home to participate in self initiated rituals while believing they are superior to other parts of the Body of Christ is a New Testament Church."

[John Kennedy]

Am I missing something in wondering if there is some sort of spiritual imperative in replicating the NT church?

[Susan Unger]

Meh...not for me.

I went through a period of time in which I was too sick to go to church for a long time. It made me think why even attend at all since I get the sermo on line, sing with the cd at home next to my chair, get the announcements from the bulletin sent by the church and get to avoid two nasty, nasty women. The answer was communion annd not just once in a blue moon but every week. Lately now my feelings are why attend a non-liturgical service with rock music only when it seems to mirror the Christian rock concert down the road at the Giant Stadium? I am not telling anyone else what to do or believe, but for me the answer for what makes church a divine encounter is one with a "holy crowd gathering on a holy day at a holy hour in a holy sanctuary [in order] to participate in a holy ritual performed by holy [people] in holy clothes...".

[Billy Cox]

Am I missing something in wondering if there is some sort of spiritual imperative in replicating the NT church?

The quote seems to be refuting the prevalent mythology that the way we 'do church' is a method handed down to us from the Apostles themselves.

I think that the whole NT church thing is a mythology to start with. An ecclesiology based on the book of Acts would be properly termed a 'flash in the pan' ecclesiology.

[Benjamin Burch]

I know I've argued against defining "worship" a specific way multiple times and have even argued in favor of doing something other than Sunday Morning Worship on Sunday mrnings here before. However, I've been thinking A LOT over the past few months and am going to rescind that second point of contention.

Thus, I don't find this quote helpful. For one, not every church has holy clothes and a holy fee.... etc. So it seems to miss the point.

However, the Bible DOES in fact speak about the Body of Christ and the Church as a unified body that celebrate unity at the Table. It also speaks about the Church as a unified body that awaits Christ return in unity together, and pray for each other in unison.

Thus, while I'm completely comfortable with "House Churches," I firmly believe that the Body of Believers enter into a specific task together on Sunday. That is, we gather together with all the other churches which are gathering. We attempt to read the same passages of Scripture (Lectionary) as a display of unity. We celebrate and give voice to our forgiveness in Christ by assuring others of their forgiveness (Passing of the Peace). We celebrate our unity with each other, with the rest of the Body, and with all of those who are "in Christ" including those who have passed on as we meet as one around the Table (Eucharist). We also pray together and "bear one another's burdens" in prayer together (prayers of the people).

Sure, you don't ahve to follow all of that just like that, but I've come to believe that the Eucharist is simply non-negotiable.

The New Testament Church was a church that attempted to do all of that and believed strongly in doing all of that and our "holy rituals" are in fact set up to give structure to our attempt to stay true to those goals.

[Jay Stiegelmeyer]

The quote may be less than gracious and unhelpful to some, but is it untrue?

[Sarah Smith]

Jay--thanks! My question in a nutshell.

For my own part, I've had those holy encounters with God in liturgical services, in evangelical services, in quiet times at home, in small group meetings, and in junky clothes on the lakeshore holding a fishing rod.

As I said, I'm not sure I am buying all this author is selling. But I am wondering if sometimes we substitute all the religious trappings for a real relationship with Jesus.

Susan--I have friends who are quite conventional members of a large evangelical group. But come Christmas, no communion at their church, and they hold a dinner for the poorer and most troubled in their neighborhood. Dinner concludes with the family serving communion to all who wish to participate. I suspect if their church ever learns they do this they will be ousted, but I admit I love the idea.

[Kevin Rector]

Either the whole holy people/place/ritual/fee thing IS a NT church or it is not. The author contends not, sound like you contend is, and at this point I think I would contend "may be part of".

Your second sentence contradicts your first. I personally don't think your first question is accurate. I would contend that the "how" of worship (which is what the holy people/place/ritual/etc. is describing) does not define nor does it define what a NT church is or isn't. I think a NT church is defined far more by how the people love God and love each other and love the world.

Now, granted I'm reading the quote out of context and you are not, so I don't want to assume too much. But based on the quote just as given, it does not strike me as true (it also doesn't strike me as particularly false). It does however sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't like the traditional church and went to the trouble of trying to convince others that they ought not either. And THAT strikes me as ungracious and arrogant.

[Jon Bemis]

The quote may be less than gracious and unhelpful to some, but is it untrue?

Who's to say whether it's untrue or not? If someone wants to they can make up whatever definition they want of a "NT Church." I have noticed that those who make this an issue make sure that their definition fits who they perceive themselves to be. People have a myriad ways of worshiping God because we are so diverse. Some find deep meaning and significance in ritual and liturgy, others don't. But it really isn't about that at all, it's about whether we love God and others as Scripture commands. Besides - how many NT churches made it to the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) century?

[Billy Cox]

The quote may be less than gracious and unhelpful to some, but is it untrue?

Does it matter whether it's true? If one could provide empirical evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus never intended for the church to be a business entity, would it change the status quo even a little bit?

[Billy Cox]

Susan--I have friends who are quite conventional members of a large evangelical group. But come Christmas, no communion at their church, and they hold a dinner for the poorer and most troubled in their neighborhood. Dinner concludes with the family serving communion to all who wish to participate. I suspect if their church ever learns they do this they will be ousted, but I admit I love the idea.

Certain parts of the Nazarene Church would have difficulty celebrating this act of grace and would see only that an unathorized person served the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. They would probably criticize Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath too.

[Sarah Smith]

I'm definitely not buying all this author is trying to sell.

Seems to me he just wants to replace the current system with another system.

However, that isn't to say everything he says is without merit.

Honestly, I think the quote I started the thread with is accurate up to a point. For too many of us, that whole holy place/time/clothes/people/ritual/fee thing is the church.

Rather, I think it is the church gathered--or at least has the potential to be.

We are also to be the church scattered--each of us an embedded chaplain so to speak in our own sphere of influence.

If we don't do that, we may as well toss the gathering in the trash can.

Billy--yes, too many Naz would have a problem with this family's ministry. They are former Nazarenes now in an SBC church simply because there is no Naz church in their community. I've never been to one of their Christmas Eve celebrations. Not invited. Why? Because I am not "out" at the invitation of the church. The folks they invite are the really down and out poor that probably can't afford the gas or car to get to church (rural area). Some are not poor monetarily but because of divorce and remarriage, or because of addictions, or because of sexual orientation, or because they are living together out of wedlock, or any number of other issues that rightfully may cost one church membership in a local church body feel unwelcome at church. The family serves their best Christmas dinner at this meal, complete with nice linens, music, candles, etc. They enjoy a fine time of eating and visiting and then read the Christmas account in Luke. One of them shares their own struggle with sin, shares that Jesus came to and for sinners and offers redemption. Then they offer the bread and juice.

Some of those folks are put off at the religious turn of events. But some have responded beautifully, some in tears. And some have not only come back to relationship with Jesus, but gone on to changed lives and a return to church.

[Billy Cox]

I know I've argued against defining "worship" a specific way multiple times and have even argued in favor of doing something other than Sunday Morning Worship on Sunday mrnings here before. However, I've been thinking A LOT over the past few months and am going to rescind that second point of contention.

Thus, I don't find this quote helpful. For one, not every church has holy clothes and a holy fee.... etc. So it seems to miss the point.

However, the Bible DOES in fact speak about the Body of Christ and the Church as a unified body that celebrate unity at the Table. It also speaks about the Church as a unified body that awaits Christ return in unity together, and pray for each other in unison.

Thus, while I'm completely comfortable with "House Churches," I firmly believe that the Body of Believers enter into a specific task together on Sunday. That is, we gather together with all the other churches which are gathering. We attempt to read the same passages of Scripture (Lectionary) as a display of unity. We celebrate and give voice to our forgiveness in Christ by assuring others of their forgiveness (Passing of the Peace). We celebrate our unity with each other, with the rest of the Body, and with all of those who are "in Christ" including those who have passed on as we meet as one around the Table (Eucharist). We also pray together and "bear one another's burdens" in prayer together (prayers of the people).

Sure, you don't ahve to follow all of that just like that, but I've come to believe that the Eucharist is simply non-negotiable.

The New Testament Church was a church that attempted to do all of that and believed strongly in doing all of that and our "holy rituals" are in fact set up to give structure to our attempt to stay true to those goals.

This is a solid argument against those who divorce themselves from institutional church life altogether, but I don't see what it has to do with house churches.

[Billy Cox]

Seems to me he just wants to replace the current system with another system.

Not all house churches are cut from the same cloth, so to speak. Some house churches are surely started as 'smaller versions of the church I left, except with me in charge.' Others plan on eventually being a large church, so the house church is just a low-overhead way to get into the game.

We are also to be the church scattered--each of us an embedded chaplain so to speak in our own sphere of influence.

I like that word picture.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I've kind of just scanned the posts of this thread, so if I've missed something, I apologize. But is anyone really arguing for one or the other? I would doubt it (I suppose I could be wrong). But one who prefers either option and labels the other to be outside the bounds of the Church is just as guilty of the exclusionary tactics that s/he likely assumes upon the other.

We've been in Acts for a couple of months now and still have six weeks to go. We began reading and preaching it (in part) to see how the Church "acted" at the beginning in hopes that it might be directive for us today. What we've discovered is that the book of Acts (primarily the first half) is not about what that group of people did, but what the Holy Spirit did through them and their changed life as a result. It seems like an obvious and subtle realization...but it's been important to me nonetheless. Discussion about the format of gathering and worship seems kind of moot at this point.

[Billy Cox]

We've been in Acts for a couple of months now and still have six weeks to go. We began reading and preaching it (in part) to see how the Church "acted" at the beginning in hopes that it might be directive for us today. What we've discovered is that the book of Acts (primarily the first half) is not about what that group of people did, but what the Holy Spirit did through them and their changed life as a result. It seems like an obvious and subtle realization...but it's been important to me nonetheless. Discussion about the format of gathering and worship seems kind of moot at this point.

If the first part of Acts is about the Holy Spirit's activity, why do we give so much prescriptive currency to what the Apostles were doing? How long can a community of believers liquidate their sources of income (a.k.a. land) before they are all as poor as the people they fed with the proceeds of those land sales? In the meantime, those poor people would be inexplicably hungry again too.

From my perspective, the Twelve so thoroughly resisted the Holy Spirit's work, that God raised up Paul to take the Gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea; thus doing an end-run around the former disciples.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

From my perspective, the Twelve so thoroughly resisted the Holy Spirit's work, that God raised up Paul to take the Gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea; thus doing an end-run around the former disciples.

I think that you're giving Luke way too much omniscience.

Either that or you're more of a dictational theorist than I would have thought.

[Benjamin Burch]

This is a solid argument against those who divorce themselves from institutional church life altogether, but I don't see what it has to do with house churches.

I wasn't intending to address House Churches. I was only addressing/responding to the quote.

[John Kennedy]

We have always had two churches: the invisible Body of Christ and the visible 'flesh and blood', institutional church. I know some whose favorite indoor activity is to rant against the 'institutionalized' church, as though they could somehow remove the 'institutional fangs' and emerge (oops, wrong word - trouble is I can't think of one that works better) with something incredibly pristine.

A lot of groups start off with noble aspirations of perfecting some body that will be free of institutional taint. Don't bet the rent money on it. People get involved and there goes the neighborhood. As soon as it gains any adherents it will make some moves toward, at least, rudimentary organization/institution - people have this crazy idea that if they labor to produce something today at least there'll be some sign of it being around tomorrow.

Politicians, aspiring to serve in Washington will commonly 'run against Washington'. Religious leaders, or wannabe leaders, aspiring to restore the vitality and integrity of religious institutions will develop new 'anti-institutional institutions'.

In Christianity it's been going on for two millenia - I can't think of anyone I'd trust for directions on how to cross the street, who seriously expects this to change. People that claim to have a way to somehow bring about non-church, institution/organization-free Christianity are simply demonstrating their having found a new marketing gimmick that will appeal to the gullible and those without a working memory.

Does the institution/organization need regular recovery of visions/housecleaning/maintenance attention? Yeah, like nine days a week. But you can rely on this: the non-church church is about like the 'we-don't- have-no -doctrine-we-just-preach-the-Bible' bunch. When you're around 'em, check to make sure your wallet's still where you thought it was.

[Billy Cox]

I think that you're giving Luke way too much omniscience.

Either that or you're more of a dictational theorist than I would have thought.

Yeah, that's why I qualified it with 'from my perspective'. And yes, the details of the story support that, but Luke doesn't come out and say that the disciples were disobedient and so God launched plan 'B' through Paul.

[Billy Cox]

A lot of groups start off with noble aspirations of perfecting some body that will be free of institutional taint. Don't bet the rent money on it. People get involved and there goes the neighborhood. As soon as it gains any adherents it will make some moves toward, at least, rudimentary organization/institution - people have this crazy idea that if they labor to produce something today at least there'll be some sign of it being around tomorrow.

I think it is a human impulse to try and preserve the fruits of our labors. Many have tried to resist it, but sooner or later they institutionalize. It is possible that a new movement of God could lead some to codify their rejection of institutionalization, but ironically, the very act of codifying some sort of shared value is the first of many steps toward the dark side.

I understand institutions and their inevitability, but I don't have to support them. If it's the second generation of any given movement that institutionalizes, I'll just have to always strive to lock arms with the first generation of whatever God is doing today.

Does the institution/organization need regular recovery of visions/housecleaning/maintenance attention? Yeah, like nine days a week. But you can rely on this: the non-church church is about like the 'we-don't- have-no -doctrine-we-just-preach-the-Bible' bunch. When you're around 'em, check to make sure your wallet's still where you thought it was.

John, I usually appreciate your insights, but I find this sort of dismissive language insulting.

Aside from that, I think that the institutional church serves a necessary purpose to bring structure to spiritual ambiguities that wide swaths of the populace are not ready to wrestle with. What has me jaded about the institution is that it tends to spoon-feed the congregation with platitudes; never encouraging the rank and file to aspire to a deeper faith.

I am still connected with a local church, but to use a school analogy, I am an alumnus, not a perpetual sophomore.

[John Kennedy]

I think it is a human impulse to try and preserve the fruits of our labors. Many have tried to resist it, but sooner or later they institutionalize. It is possible that a new movement of God could lead some to codify their rejection of institutionalization, but ironically, the very act of codifying some sort of shared value is the first of many steps toward the dark side.

I understand institutions and their inevitability, but I don't have to support them. If it's the second generation of any given movement that institutionalizes, I'll just have to always strive to lock arms with the first generation of whatever God is doing today.

Billy -
Certainly had no intention of being dismissive. Allow me to clarify where i was coming from. I think there are, at least for purposes of this this discussion, 3 groups: no church - no way, no how; non-church church - keep the essence but strip away as much of the accretions as possible; and church church - try to preserve the essence within a somewhat 'traditional' context.

The no church group is simply a reality, they have no real bearing on the discussion at hand. The non-church people could be further sub-divided into two groups: those who have decided that that approach works be for them but recognizes that for others the church-church solution works. With them I have not problem. They've found a better way. My characterization was not directed at them.

The other non-church church group not only has found a 'better way', they know theirs is the ONLY way to do church and anything short of what they're doing simply doesn't cut it. They certainly don't have to wrestle with the question of whether or not their theology is flawed. IT AIN'T! They're like the guy I've referred to who didn't have to wait for others to see his humility - he was and he knew it, bless God!
I'll try to establish redemptive contact with the no-church group. I'll certainly respect the non-church church people who don't think they have a corner on God. I'll try to avoid the 'we're out and you should be too' crew to the best of my ability.

John, I usually appreciate your insights, but I find this sort of dismissive language insulting.

Aside from that, I think that the institutional church serves a necessary purpose to bring structure to spiritual ambiguities that wide swaths of the populace are not ready to wrestle with. What has me jaded about the institution is that it tends to spoon-feed the congregation with platitudes; never encouraging the rank and file to aspire to a deeper faith.

I am still connected with a local church, but to use a school analogy, I am an alumnus, not a perpetual sophomore.

The main body of my response is in the middle of your post. Don't know how I managed that. This latter part is simply being written in order to comply with the legalistic demands of my computer that my message be at least 5 characters in length.

[Billy Cox]

Billy -
Certainly had no intention of being dismissive. Allow me to clarify where i was coming from. I think there are, at least for purposes of this this discussion, 3 groups: no church - no way, no how; non-church church - keep the essence but strip away as much of the accretions as possible; and church church - try to preserve the essence within a somewhat 'traditional' context.

The no church group is simply a reality, they have no real bearing on the discussion at hand. The non-church people could be further sub-divided into two groups: those who have decided that that approach works be for them but recognizes that for others the church-church solution works. With them I have not problem. They've found a better way. My characterization was not directed at them.

The other non-church church group not only has found a 'better way', they know theirs is the ONLY way to do church and anything short of what they're doing simply doesn't cut it. They certainly don't have to wrestle with the question of whether or not their theology is flawed. IT AIN'T! They're like the guy I've referred to who didn't have to wait for others to see his humility - he was and he knew it, bless God!
I'll try to establish redemptive contact with the no-church group. I'll certainly respect the non-church church people who don't think they have a corner on God. I'll try to avoid the 'we're out and you should be too' crew to the best of my ability.

The flipside of the 'we're out (of church) and you should be too' are the people who say 'we're in the church and there is no salvation outside of it.'

What do you think of the idea that a local church's program of discipleship could be so successful that there is the occasional person who 'ages out' or graduates? Just because I have put away childish things does not mean that the church should stop serving children...so to speak.

[John Kennedy]

The flipside of the 'we're out (of church) and you should be too' are the people who say 'we're in the church and there is no salvation outside of it.'

What do you think of the idea that a local church's program of discipleship could be so successful that there is the occasional person who 'ages out' or graduates? Just because I have put away childish things does not mean that the church should stop serving children...so to speak.

Billy -
You go to your church and I'll go to mine.
I really think people need to go where they'll be happy. I have spent time in church situations that didn't meet my needs: it was incredibly frustrating and non-productive and I will NEVER let that happen again.

[Billy Cox]

Billy -
You go to your church and I'll go to mine.
I really think people need to go where they'll be happy. I have spent time in church situations that didn't meet my needs: it was incredibly frustrating and non-productive and I will NEVER let that happen again.

Actually I was interested in your critique of the idea that a person can spiritually mature beyond the scope of the average church's discipleship program.