I used to think that in order to work out a theology of church all that you needed to do was to check out books like ‘Systematic Theology – An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine’ by Wayne Grudem (1994 – ISBN 0-85110-652-8). To me this was the Biblically sound way forward. If what was written in the book squared up with what was in the Bible then you were on safe ground.
A quick survey of the large variety of church expressions would show that there are difficulties with this simple position. That is not to say that the Bible does not hold the complete revelation about the nature of church, but that what it says needs to be viewed the light of history and practice.
The current position of my exploration of church is that the church is the gracious gift of God for the nurture and equipping of the saints to enable them to love God and human kind. All that I can conclude at this point is that provided the organisation seeks these goals it is on the right track.
God has created each individual in a unique way such that different people feel comfortable in different settings. The people that are part of Pioneers church, or are associated with us may or may not feel at home in other settings, but feel most comfortable to adopt this church style. A similar comment can be made for people who are comfortable as part of other churches.
I am very sure that ‘the church is the community of all true believers for all time’. (Grudem page 853) This raises the whole debate concerning the issue of the ‘visible’ and the ‘invisible’ church. I take this to mean that it cannot be known, at this moment in history, which people in any church or indeed, out of any church group, are true believers and which are not. I illustrate ‘at this moment in history’ by referring to the novel ‘Left Behind’, in which large-scale disappearance of many people have taken place. Most of those who have disappeared are known to be ‘Christians’ and, surprisingly, some known to ‘Christian’ ministers, have not been ‘raptured’ into heaven.
For me the theological and practical problem seems to involve answering the question, “How does community work out?”
The Bible seems to show that believers generally met in small groups (although there is evidence of larger groups). From the time of the dispersion these meetings took place in the homes of believers in their own area. They met for worship including breaking bread, teaching and supporting one another. It would seem that unbelievers could come as visitors, but generally avoided joining a group of believers unless they first enquired.
The first and second century church seemed to hold to these same principles. But, if anything membership became even stricter. I understand that there was a ‘bouncer’ on the door. True ‘enquirers’ had a certain level of admission short of communion. It became the practice for ‘enquirers’ to be ‘discipled’, generally by the sponsor who had introduced them to the faith in the first place. I understand that ‘lifestyle’ evangelism was the principle method of demonstrating the faith to unbelievers.
My understanding of these changes was that the church began to form in pockets within an ‘alien’ culture. Apart from not have a Judaeistic, monotheistic faith the pagan nations did not have the same societal or moral values. Hence the bouncer to ‘protect the flock’ and the ‘training’ before admission.
Water baptism was still the norm before admission into membership, although, I believe that, at least one of the early church fathers was calling this into practice.
The most significant changes that took place were in the fourth century when the Roman Empire was ‘Christianised’. It was ‘at this point there was a need to develop structures for maintaining a large semi-civic organisation’. (Rev. Tim Norwood – ‘Joining the Rainbow’ – 2008 – unpublished). This led to the formation of a ‘professional’ priesthood and the building of ‘churches’. The payment of tithe began at this time as an ecclesiastical tax; replacing the ‘table’ for helping the needy.
At this point I find myself in an awkward position. If, as I do, accept the changes brought about by planting Christianity into an alien culture, then, I should accept that all historical changes to the church are perfectly valid. To some extent I do; as pointed out earlier. That is the church is inclusive. However, I think that the church has lost much when it was ‘professionalised’. It would seem to me that much of the personal responsibilities of believers can easily be eroded, and non-believers could easily consider themselves believers as long as they follow the rituals of church.
Over the years I have witnessed many church leaders of various denominations trying to address these issues and I think that the results could easily lead to distorted ‘believers’ in a distorted church.
The questions for me are these. Firstly, is it possible to recover the spirituality of the early church given the structures that we have? And, secondly are some structures more open to what seems to be such a mega shift.
My feeling is that answers to such question of crucial importance if the church is going to impact the prevailing post-Christian world view.
A quick survey of the large variety of church expressions would show that there are difficulties with this simple position. That is not to say that the Bible does not hold the complete revelation about the nature of church, but that what it says needs to be viewed the light of history and practice.
The current position of my exploration of church is that the church is the gracious gift of God for the nurture and equipping of the saints to enable them to love God and human kind. All that I can conclude at this point is that provided the organisation seeks these goals it is on the right track.
God has created each individual in a unique way such that different people feel comfortable in different settings. The people that are part of Pioneers church, or are associated with us may or may not feel at home in other settings, but feel most comfortable to adopt this church style. A similar comment can be made for people who are comfortable as part of other churches.
I am very sure that ‘the church is the community of all true believers for all time’. (Grudem page 853) This raises the whole debate concerning the issue of the ‘visible’ and the ‘invisible’ church. I take this to mean that it cannot be known, at this moment in history, which people in any church or indeed, out of any church group, are true believers and which are not. I illustrate ‘at this moment in history’ by referring to the novel ‘Left Behind’, in which large-scale disappearance of many people have taken place. Most of those who have disappeared are known to be ‘Christians’ and, surprisingly, some known to ‘Christian’ ministers, have not been ‘raptured’ into heaven.
For me the theological and practical problem seems to involve answering the question, “How does community work out?”
The Bible seems to show that believers generally met in small groups (although there is evidence of larger groups). From the time of the dispersion these meetings took place in the homes of believers in their own area. They met for worship including breaking bread, teaching and supporting one another. It would seem that unbelievers could come as visitors, but generally avoided joining a group of believers unless they first enquired.
The first and second century church seemed to hold to these same principles. But, if anything membership became even stricter. I understand that there was a ‘bouncer’ on the door. True ‘enquirers’ had a certain level of admission short of communion. It became the practice for ‘enquirers’ to be ‘discipled’, generally by the sponsor who had introduced them to the faith in the first place. I understand that ‘lifestyle’ evangelism was the principle method of demonstrating the faith to unbelievers.
My understanding of these changes was that the church began to form in pockets within an ‘alien’ culture. Apart from not have a Judaeistic, monotheistic faith the pagan nations did not have the same societal or moral values. Hence the bouncer to ‘protect the flock’ and the ‘training’ before admission.
Water baptism was still the norm before admission into membership, although, I believe that, at least one of the early church fathers was calling this into practice.
The most significant changes that took place were in the fourth century when the Roman Empire was ‘Christianised’. It was ‘at this point there was a need to develop structures for maintaining a large semi-civic organisation’. (Rev. Tim Norwood – ‘Joining the Rainbow’ – 2008 – unpublished). This led to the formation of a ‘professional’ priesthood and the building of ‘churches’. The payment of tithe began at this time as an ecclesiastical tax; replacing the ‘table’ for helping the needy.
At this point I find myself in an awkward position. If, as I do, accept the changes brought about by planting Christianity into an alien culture, then, I should accept that all historical changes to the church are perfectly valid. To some extent I do; as pointed out earlier. That is the church is inclusive. However, I think that the church has lost much when it was ‘professionalised’. It would seem to me that much of the personal responsibilities of believers can easily be eroded, and non-believers could easily consider themselves believers as long as they follow the rituals of church.
Over the years I have witnessed many church leaders of various denominations trying to address these issues and I think that the results could easily lead to distorted ‘believers’ in a distorted church.
The questions for me are these. Firstly, is it possible to recover the spirituality of the early church given the structures that we have? And, secondly are some structures more open to what seems to be such a mega shift.
My feeling is that answers to such question of crucial importance if the church is going to impact the prevailing post-Christian world view.
No comments:
Post a Comment