Good morning, Urch.

The fact remains that you don't understand the subject in any detail beyond the standard 'catch-phrases', as our brief tete-a-tete in the 'Shoutbox' yesterday clearly demonstrated. And given that your experience of Christianity is mediated through a distinctively Pentecostal frame-of-reference, what does this suggest to you about the capacity for your style of Christianity to impart adequate teaching in this area of theology?

To enable this conversation to progress towards something meaningful, I'm going to set you a little 'homework'. I'd like for you to consult every passage in the New Testament that addresses the issue of "the Church". I'd then like you to undertake a similar task with respect to "the believer", and finish by analysing the results. You should find the matter illuminating.

Blessings,

Ian

Ian

My 'experience' of Christianity is not mediated through anything or anyone except Jesus Christ, although obviously we can all be ínfluenced by the teachings that we receive.  During the last 2 years, as I have been looking to Jesus as my saviour, my redeemer, my all, I feel myself growing in ways that I never knew about prior to coming to relationship with Him.  I  thank Him each day for loving me so much that He took such a 'luke-warm' person as I was, and showed me a better way. Yes, this may come over as 'all loopy pente bla bla' but I don't really care what others think of me, I only want to become more like Jesus and less like 'me' - and I will do WHATEVER it takes. This has nothing to do with the 'local church' I attend (because I honestly don't think it matters which denomination/local church) but is to do with actually making Jesus the Lord over my life.

Anyway, after thinking over things last night and researching a little, this is my understanding of 'the church' (for what it's worth)

The 'church' is not the building but describes the people - ALL who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.  The word 'ekklesia' is the Greek word for church which seems to mean 'an assembly'.  Jesus said 'I will build my church' in Matt 16 and He obviously loved it (us) so much that He gave His life for it. The church is the body of Christ and I wonder sometimes whether Jesus even 'sees' the many divisions and denominations or just looks and sees US as believers in all our diveristy? 

John 17:20-23 in the Message says "I'm praying not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me because of them and their witness about me. The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind - just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so they might be one heart and mind with us. Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me. The same glory you gave me, I gave them, So they'll be as unified and together as we are - I in them and you in me. Then they'll be mature in this oneness, And give the godless world evidence that you've sent me and loved them in the same way you've loved me".

This passage (and I've read through the many translations) seems (to me) to say that Christ wants the church to be united in one heart and one mind.  I guess this doesn't mean all denominations merging, but to have a unity and a common purpose - to reach those that don't know Him. If this is our aim, then maybe instead of squabbling about 'who is right' and 'the loopy pentes are wrong' etc maybe we should keep focussed on the goal of reaching the lost with the gospel message. And (dare I say it?) even embrace the fact that different denominations can reach people in different ways that enables them to come to know Christ - the goal should be to reach out (not just vertically but horizontally, as you say Ian).

I will be busy doing the 'homework' that you've kindly 'set' for me, but the above is how I (currently) see the church, its role and purpose. 
 
Urchin

Hi, Urch.

My 'experience' of Christianity is not mediated through anything or anyone except Jesus Christ, although obviously we can all be ínfluenced by the teachings that we receive.

Rubbish. Your experience of Christianity is comprehensively mediated through your particular religious context, given that Christianity necessarily involves a corporate faith and not a strictly individual one. Further that the Christian faith itself is fully expressed in, and is engaged with and through, a corporate identity. Such is the biblical model, such is the testimony of history. Your views by comparsion, present little than a reflection of the western philosophical penchant for individualism.

During the last 2 years, as I have been looking to Jesus as my saviour, my redeemer, my all, I feel myself growing in ways that I never knew about prior to coming to relationship with Him.  I  thank Him each day for loving me so much that He took such a 'luke-warm' person as I was, and showed me a better way. Yes, this may come over as 'all loopy pente bla bla' but I don't really care what others think of me, I only want to become more like Jesus and less like 'me' - and I will do WHATEVER it takes. This has nothing to do with the 'local church' I attend (because I honestly don't think it matters which denomination/local church) but is to do with actually making Jesus the Lord over my life.

You've been a Christian for a scant two years, and during that time your formative experience of Christianity has been within the parameters of a rather defective form of Australian Pentecostalism. Consequently, the degree to which you do become "conformed to the image of God's Son" has everything to do with your local church, its teachings, its dogmas and its practices. And given your comments thus far, it seems that you still apparently have failed to grasp that salvation isn't simply a matter of the 'vertical' relationship between you and God. However, I personally hold hope that your continued study into what the NT teaches about the 'Church' will broaden your understanding. And the results should also inform the naive assumptions that you currently hold concerning your chosen fellowship, too.

The 'church' is not the building but describes the people - ALL who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.  The word 'ekklesia' is the Greek word for church which seems to mean 'an assembly'.  Jesus said 'I will build my church' in Matt 16 and He obviously loved it (us) so much that He gave His life for it. The church is the body of Christ and I wonder sometimes whether Jesus even 'sees' the many divisions and denominations or just looks and sees US as believers in all our diveristy?

Well, such is a very simplistic and, at best, partial description of the reality of what IS the Church. But even in the gossamer-like threads that you've offered me above, surely you noted that the essence remains fully corporate? (I'd encourage you to think through the implications that derive from this fact).

This passage (and I've read through the many translations) seems (to me) to say that Christ wants the church to be united in one heart and one mind.  I guess this doesn't mean all denominations merging, but to have a unity and a common purpose - to reach those that don't know Him. If this is our aim, then maybe instead of squabbling about 'who is right' and 'the loopy pentes are wrong' etc maybe we should keep focussed on the goal of reaching the lost with the gospel message. And (dare I say it?) even embrace the fact that different denominations can reach people in different ways that enables them to come to know Christ - the goal should be to reach out (not just vertically but horizontally, as you say Ian).

To begin with, who is it that says the 'aim' of the Church is "...to reach those that don't know him?" Scripture? Or you? And your later opinions with respect to the issue present little more than the same unbiblical and personalised/internalised defence for your Pentecostal choices, that you are wont to repeat whenever I challenge you on this subject. In short, you've not come close to addressing the core issues.

So, in summary, I believe you've much more reading, study and reflection ahead of you.

Blessings,

Ian

Ian, of COURSE I've got more reading, study and reflection to do! I look forward with anticipation to doing just that for the rest of my life, in actual fact.  And yes, I have considered more formal study and hope to pursue it further in my 'retirement' (whenever THAT might be!)   

Ian: To begin with, who is it that says the 'aim' of the Church is "...to reach those that don't know him?" Scripture? Or you?

I don't believe that this is the ONLY aim of the church but surely Jesus WANTS us to lead others to Him - or do you not think so for some reason? Perhaps you could share with all of us the reason for not thinking this, if that's the case?

The scripture that I used (I thought) tells me that, through His church Christ wants the unbelievers to have 'evidence' that the Father sent him and that God loves them in the same way that He loves Him.
John 17:20-23 in the Message says "I'm praying not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me because of them and their witness about me. The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind - just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so they might be one heart and mind with us. Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me. The same glory you gave me, I gave them, So they'll be as unified and together as we are - I in them and you in me. Then they'll be mature in this oneness, And give the godless world evidence that you've sent me and loved them in the same way you've loved me.

Ian: And given your comments thus far, it seems that you still apparently have failed to grasp that salvation isn't simply a matter of the 'vertical' relationship between you and God. However, I personally hold hope that your continued study into what the NT teaches about the 'Church' will broaden your understanding. And the results should also inform the naive assumptions that you currently hold concerning your chosen fellowship, too.

If (as you say) I've failed to grasp that salvation isn't simply a matter of the vertical relationship between my and God, then WHY do I want to reach out to others so that they may also know the gospel message and come to salvation in Christ?  Isn't that part of reaching out horizontally? Am I missing the point again?
Rest assured I WILL continue studying and I pray that my understanding will be broadened also. I know you may find this hard to believe but my 'assumptions' about my 'chosen fellowship' are not quite as naive as you might think. My eyes are open and I am 'sorting' and 'sifting' and keeping an open mind in regards to available options - if that makes sense.

Urchin

Good afternoon, Urch.

Ian, of COURSE I've got more reading, study and reflection to do! I look forward with anticipation to doing just that for the rest of my life, in actual fact.  And yes, I have considered more formal study and hope to pursue it further in my 'retirement' (whenever THAT might be!)

Okay, but so?

To begin with, who is it that says the 'aim' of the Church is "...to reach those that don't know him?" Scripture? Or you?

I don't believe that this is the ONLY aim of the church but surely Jesus WANTS us to lead others to Him - or do you not think so for some reason? Perhaps you could share with all of us the reason for not thinking this, if that's the case?

What I think is that you're being rather 'hazy' and altogether uncritical in your thinking. You clearly said the aim of the Church was "...to reach those that don't know him". I simply challenged you as to why you thought that was the, or even an, 'aim' (or 'purpose') of the Church.

And given your comments thus far, it seems that you still apparently have failed to grasp that salvation isn't simply a matter of the 'vertical' relationship between you and God. However, I personally hold hope that your continued study into what the NT teaches about the 'Church' will broaden your understanding. And the results should also inform the naive assumptions that you currently hold concerning your chosen fellowship, too.

If (as you say) I've failed to grasp that salvation isn't simply a matter of the vertical relationship between my and God, then WHY do I want to reach out to others so that they may also know the gospel message and come to salvation in Christ?  Isn't that part of reaching out horizontally? Am I missing the point again?

'Yes', you are missing the point again. Please try to remember that we're discussing the Church and not Christian evangelism, okay? But I suppose I'll have to give you a bit of a 'push' so that you'll turn your thinking in a direction that it, perhaps, should go. Read Philippians 2:12. You may be interested to discover that the pronouns therein appear in the plural rather than in the singular form. Is this point significant? Is it germane to our current discussion? What do you think?

Rest assured I WILL continue studying and I pray that my understanding will be broadened also. I know you may find this hard to believe but my 'assumptions' about my 'chosen fellowship' are not quite as naive as you might think. My eyes are open and I am 'sorting' and 'sifting' and keeping an open mind in regards to available options - if that makes sense.

Sure. As I understood things to stand, you were still fellowshipping with "the Edge". Further, only just the other day you assured me (and all the other readers of the "Chatbox") that where one fellowships isn't ultimately of any significance. Both factors have me still leaning towards you being rather naive.

Blessings,

Ian

Philippians 2:12

(NLT) Dear friends, you always followed my instructions when I was with you. And now that I am away, it is even more important. Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear.

(KJV) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Urchles,

That is indeed the passage. Now what is its significance?

Blessings,

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Hi, Ralph.

Do you reckon that your quoting of Mounce's dictionary served to advance the discussion that I was having with Urch? Or is it possible that it might better be considered one of those 'distractions' that I alluded to in the Shoutbox a day or two earlier? You presented your offering as (in your words) "...a starting point of studies". However, I'd already set Urch some 'homework'; a little research that I intended would function as the proper point-of-departure (or 'starting point') for this particular study.

To answer the questions: what IS the Church, what is its role and its functions; doesn't hinge on a lexical study of the Greek term, 'ekklesia'. To adequately address this enquiry requires one to delve into the very rich theology relating to this theme that we might find scattered throughout the New Testament corpus.

And to briefly correct Mounce, Paul does, indeed, consider the Church to be a physical structure: a 'building' comprising of individual physical 'bricks', believers such as you and me.

Blessings,

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Ralph,

What absolute piffle and nonsense! To begin with, I think you've misquoted Moreland terribly (the contexts are not precisely matched). Second, it sounds a lot like "sour grapes" on your part. After all, what prevents you from gaining such learning but you, yourself? You have the opportunity, the time and the means.

Next, I think this forum and 'PleaseConsider' provides ample testimony to the fact that I present fish both "scaled and cleaned", and also "in need of scaling and cleaning". The product itself depends on the circumstances and the needs and capacities of the individuals concerned.

What I think is that you're simply bemoaning a degree of laziness on your part.

Blessings,

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Ralph,

So you think I was being unfair in suggesting that laziness might be an issue? Why? Had you bothered to start combing through the New Testament looking for the contexts in which "the Church" and "the believers" are to be found? If not, then why not? After all, such was very clearly the 'homework' that had been set; part-and-parcel of the process that leads to the 'joy of independent discovery' that I had mentioned elsewhere. But if you hadn't, if you were simply hoping that I would 'lay it all out before you', as it were, then how is such not laziness on your part, as I inferred?

In your previous post you boldly suggested that those who have gone to trouble of gaining such learning try to keep it all to themselves. To whit I responded, 'piffle and nonsense'! And my counter-claim was that it is often quite the opposite that is the case. That it is often simple laziness on the part of the latter that prevents them from actually learning a la the former.

So let me restate the question: have you undertaken the 'homework' yet?

Blessings

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Ian, 

I've now read every scripture on 'the church' and 'the believer' in the New Testament but am still 'chewing it over' before I write anything. 

I've also read Phillipians 2:12 in all of the translations and, rather than take that one verse out of context, have read and re-read the whole book of Phillipians which Paul wrote while imprisoned. I've found it very challenging to read and understand (simple soul that I am) 

When Paul refers to 'salvation' in this verse, I don't believe he is talking about the Phillipians' eternal salvation (as we cannot 'earn' our salvation) They were already believers and therefore already 'saved' and also he used the term 'my beloved' which was an expression he used for believers. I think 'salvation' here was more to do with deliverance from sufferings (from their opponents).

In 1:27-30 Paul calls them to be in unity in the faith because they were under attack for their faith as he also was. Unity comes through selflessness and humility among the believers with Jesus himself being the model of humility. He obeyed the Father and the Father exalted Him when He humbled himself.

It appears to me that Paul was speaking of ongoing obedience with humility, reverence and respect (fear and trembling). The Phillipians had always obeyed and Paul was calling them to obey yet again. If we love and honour God, then we should want to obey him. 

In the Message translation v12-13 Paul told the Phillipians to " keep on doing what you've done from the beginning. When I was living among you, you lived in responsive obedience. Now that I'm separated from you, keep it up. Be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent and sensitive before God".

Lots more studying to do!

Urch

Ian, you can be a real JERK some times!

Dog.

Good morning, Ralph.

I've no intention of "shooting you down", but I will point out that, as interesting as what you've written might be, it misses the point. Further, your understanding of the Philippians passage is somewhat deficient.

I'd suggest that you start with the 'homework', and see what develops.

Blessings,

Ian

Dog,

'Yes', but we both know just how 'highly' I rate your opinion. 'Nuff said.

Blessings,

Ian

Urchles,

Well done! You're very clearly on the right track. With respect to the Philippians passage, two points: (1) the Greek word for 'salvation' doesn't always refer to a spiritual 'saving', and (2) I'd suggest that you hone in on the corporate aspects of the passage a little more, especially the implications vis the 'horizontal' aspect to salvation.

Fun, huh?

Blessings,

Ian

Didaktikon,

You come across to me as though you think that YOUR opinion is the "Be all to end all."

Take a little time to consider that others might agree with the opinion of Dog, in the description of you.

I have had my say on the matter and expect you to respond, but I do not intend to enter into a slanging match or

philosophical discussion/argument.

Good morning, Escaped.

There are, I believe, two points about which you've failed to properly grasp. First, there is no-one else who visits this forum, who is capable of providing the 'service' that I provide here. Not a boast, simply a fact. Put bluntly then, unless proven otherwise, when it comes to matters exegetical my opinion is the 'be-all-end-all'. You might not like it, but that's simply the way it is. Second, please do try to understand that I don't really care a whit for how people may perceive me, or my manner, here. As I understand matters, 'popularity' takes a back-row seat to biblical and theological truth. I'm concerned only with the latter.

Blessings,

Ian

With respect to the Philippians passage, two points: (1) the Greek word for 'salvation' doesn't always refer to a spiritual 'saving'
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

The same Greek word for 'salvation' is also used for 'deliverance' - Paul uses the word 'salvation' twice in previous verses but was not talking about eternal (spiritual) salvation so when he tells the Phillipians to work out their salvation in v12, I think he is speaking more about deliverance from trials/suffering/ persecution etc.

I'd always thought it was to do with our actual spiritual salvation - very different to what I'd believed it to be!
 
I guess it's time for me to stop being lazy and do my own searching out of matters (like my name suggests)

s urchin

Urchles,

The joy of independent discovery, eh?

Blessings,

Ian

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Brolgs, that's my fault!

Ian mentioned Phil 2:12 as a starting point and I sort of got stuck there (which is OK as far as I'm concerned). I feel the need to examine and search out a little more diligently than I have in the past - good for all of us to do!

I guess I'll get to 'the church, its purpose and its role' bit in a while.

Urch

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Just briefly on Phil. 2:12, in light of what Urch has revealed; could one say "Work out your own "SAFETY" with soundness of doctrine"?
       ____________________________________________________________________________________

Somehow I don't think that would be correct Brolgs. One of the words that keeps 'jumping' out at me is the first word of verse 12 - the word 'therefore'. To read ONLY verse 12 then, would be not reading it in context as the word 'therefore' connects this verse to the previous verses as a kind of 'summary' (sorry about the capitals, can't seem to get italics)

I may be a little off track here (and I'm sure Ian will let me know if I am) but I've been thinking about the closing verses of chapter 1.  Paul speaks about the Phillipians' unity of spirit and purpose in "striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents". It appears that their UNITY was an important aspect and that their enemies could not prevail against the believers' UNIFIED front. Their unity was a sign of 'deliverance'  (salvation) from their opponents. They'd already gained their eternal salvation through their faith in Christ, so the salvation spoken of here is a salvation of 'deliverance'. Just as there is salvation through faith, so there is one (a deliverance) through suffering. 

Back to 'unity' (this is from an article I read recently) - "We cannot oppose one another as believers if we expect to oppose the attacks of the world against our common faith. Humility toward our brothers and sisters in the faith is the key to our unity. If we do not kneel to serve one another, we will have a difficult time standing before the world".

This whole exercise has brought out these key words for me - ongoing obedience, humility and unity. Another key word (phrase) is 'one another-ing' - we need to love and serve one another in humility as Christ loved and served and gave himself for us. We are meant to build each other up, encourage and strengthen one another, use whatever gifts we're given to build up the church and honour our preachers and teachers. Just as our personal relationship with our creator is important, so too is our relationship with one another. If our relationship with one another is not good, how can we be the 'shining lights' that we are called to be? 

"But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as HE pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.'
No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honourable, on these we bestow greater honour; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need.
But God composed the body, having given greater honour to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another.
And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually." 1 Cor 12:18-27

Urchin



So rather than a call to 'work out our own (individual) salvation..' it appears to me to be a challenge by Paul to

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Good evening, one and all.

I thought I'd introduce a 'small' thought, in the hope of stimulating further 'big' thinking. So here it is: can a person be a Christian, but not be a part of the Church?

Blessings,

Ian

Hello Ian,

I believe the quick answer is 'no'. I'm thinking of one aspect right now - discipline. We are called to be His disciples. I cannot be disciplined on my own. I love my own way far too much. I can rationalise till the cows come home any wayward thinking/behaviour. Anyone who has spent any time out of fellowship can tell you what a slippery slope it can be.

A small issue in light of this weighty topic, but thought I started here, because this has been my experience.

I'm beginning to find my place in a church where I matter, where I can worship my God ALONGSIDE fellow believers. I can now not imagine this type of worship as a 'loner'.

Chips

 

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

(Message edited by Talmid On 30/04/2009 05:53:28)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Hi all, Interesting discussion.
Yes, I think one can be a Christian and not be in fellowship (though not the best solution to one troubles).
After all salvation is by Jesus, not the church.
Peter did ask a similar question concerning Apollo 'who followeth not with us'. God worked with that outsider Apollo in signs and miricles.
The question (very sneeky Ian) raises so many more questions about the makeup, validity and function of the church universal, how God sees the church and anyone who is considered (by God) to be a disciple.
Lets face it, we can't really allow ourselves to be disciplined by the churces many of us have been in as the church (corporate) itself is relatively undisiplined and have a tendancy to close the door to the kingdom of heaven. All teaching really comes from the Spirit anyway. Sure we can 'learn' stuff re a theological approach to the Word, but real knowledge comes via the Spirit and Word.

In saying all that, some of the deepest moments one can spend with the Lord are in fellowship, but not excluse to it.

GBYA

stalwort

Hi All,

Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper were :-

'After taking the cup: he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you".......................And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying "This is my body given for you;  do this in remembrance of me"  In the same way after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you"     (Luke 22: 17-20)

In obedience to Jesus words at the meal he shared with his disciples to do this in remembrance of me, I feel there is a need to be united with other Christians around the Lord's table in spiritual union with Jesus and with others.  A time of expressing combined appreciation of what Jesus has done for all of us.  He doesn't indicate going it alone.

Paul told the Corinthian Church "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?  And is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ?  Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf"   (1 Corinthians 10:16)

I think Christians do have to identify with the physical body of Christ, in the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup as a continuing proclamation of Jesus life, death, resurrection and in anticipation of his return.

Epi

 

Good morning, all.

Thank you for the responses, which, from my perspective, have certainly been interesting to read. If I may, I'd like to inject a few more personal thoughts to continue this dialogue.

Thought one: although Western society and culture would suggest otherwise, Christianity is a thoroughly corporate belief system in an ontological sense. The entire NT witnesses to a level of inter-dependence that simply can't be matched or offset by personal in-dependence. And the metaphors that we find used in the NT to describe the Christian Church invariably use corporate imagery. Let's consider but one for the moment: the Church as the Body of Christ, with individual members being particular 'organs'. If you cut off an ear it will die, as no part of a living body is capable of life when detached from the corporate, inter-dependent unit which is the body itself. So too the believer.

Thought two: the NT witnesses universally to Christian worship being a corporate function. One can't be taught, one can't teach or exercise one's gifts and graces, separate to or detached from the church gathered. Furthermore, the central act of Christian worship--communion--can only occur in a corporate setting. Worship of Jesus Christ remains the central function of Christianity. And worship of Jesus Christ is primarily a corporate event.

Thought three: the definition of "Christian" is "follower of (Jesus) the Christ". Jesus' teaching was of mutually supportive, inter-dependent, mutually-submissive, unified, corporate life. How can one claim to be a "follower of (Jesus) the Christ" if one chooses to reject his teaching on this fundamental issue? Christianity is on Christ's terms, not ours.

Thought four: the ultimate form of Church discipline involves the rejecting of a person from Christian fellowship. Consequently, the 'lone-Christian' image is of a person who has been cut-off from the Body of Christ and, therefore, is under the ban of God. What sane person would place themselves in such a position intentionally?!

Thought five: with respect to the supposed distinction between the "Church Triumphant/Universal" and the "Church Militant/Local", I would suggest that the latter exists as a sub-set of the former. Theologically, there are no grounds whatsoever for assuming that one can be a part of the one but apart from the other.

Thought six: the entire witness of Scripture is one of submission to authority. First to God through Christ; second to those in positions of authority (whether secular or religious); third each to one and another in Christ. A Christian simply does not have the luxury of choosing not to be in submission to hierarchy, as according to Paul, such remains part of the Created Order. Furthermore, the Christian Church has always been a "work-in-progress". There are no perfect churches, if there were, then three-quarters of Paul's letters wouldn't have had to be written! Acknowledging this, endure we must with what we have.

So to summarise my position thus far, it seems that Scripture is perfectly clear on the issue: one cannot be a Christian and stand independent of the Christian Church. To do so is nothing but sinful rebellion, at the heart of which is fallen human pride.

Blessings,

Ian

Once more.

A few people raised the issue of how one assesses whether a group is a Christian church, and even if one needs to be involved with such a 'formal' organisation. The alternative, apparently, is to be found in 'fellowshipping' in decidedly 'informal' settings and/or arrangements.

I would suggest that, historically, Christianity has understood there to be certain 'marks' that serves to identify the Christian church. As these 'marks' can be 'Googled', there's not much point in me noting the various Catholic (Orthodox and Roman) and Protestant (principally Reformed and Lutheran) lists here. However, it should become clear to all who undertake a survey of the results, that not every group who calls itself a Christian church actually is a Christian church (Revivalism immediately springs to mind). But is this fact even important? Does a group of Christians need to be a 'church' for meaningful engagement to take place?

My response is, it depends.

Meaningful personal engagement can take place anywhere, over a cup of coffee in someone's lounge room for example. However, spiritual maturation requires input in ways that only the Church can provide: communion, teaching, growth through discipleship and discipline immediately springs to mind. And germane to our current discussion is the simple fact that Jesus Christ explicitly stated that he would build his Church, and that the entire NT witness focuses on the Church being the conduit for Christian growth and mission given that it alone is founded upon delegated apostolic authority.

Perhaps the main reason why some people find 'informal' Christian social gatherings more appealing than formalised church participation; however, is that the former occurs on their terms? Something to think about.

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 30/04/2009 19:39:05)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Ralph,

Do we need to have a theological education? Isn’t it suffice being just concerned for saving souls and keeping people in a place that functions as a waiting room for the hereafter?

I sincerely hope that you're kidding. Consider: if one isn't theologically informed, then how does one know that one's beliefs and practices are actually correct? That they are biblically defensible and pleasing to God? Furthermore, without a reasonable level of theological sophistication, how could one be certain that what one presents to others is actually capable of 'saving souls'? How could one make the categorical distinction between truth and heresy?

After all, we see and hear of churches doing just that, where the people are happy and blessed as long as they are experiencing some emotional joy or spiritual event that convinces them it is God’s way.

So spiritual 'truth' is to be assessed by the level of 'happiness' displayed by people, huh? That subjective human emotions rather than objective biblical fidelity is the new measure by which such matters are to be judged?

I find that I need to ask: are you actually serious?

Ian

P.S. Who is Peter Kuric? I've never heard of him.


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 03/05/2009 23:29:28)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

1. The priesthood of all believers.
2. The universal human need for leadership. 
3. The servant nature of leadership

Leadership will only be effective and safe if a balance is kept of these three perspectives, so we will examine them in some detail.

1.  The Priesthood of all Believers
Every person is responsible to give account to God for his or her own life. There is no sense in
 which a king, minister, governor, leader, boss, leader, captain, or pastor has any titled premium on God's presence or favour. God communicates through His Holy Spirit to every person who personally desires a relationship with Him and is willing to approach Him through faith in the atoning work of Christ. 
Biblical Christian leadership, then, is not a matter of a leader standing between God and another person as 'God's representative' (that is, a 'priest'). Nor is leadership a matter of the leader’s unlimited authority over another person's life such that questioning the authority of a leader's opinions about a matter is automatically equated to disobedience to God.                              In the light of this concept, then, leaders need to see themselves in the role of exercising real authority, but their authority is limited to specific areas and times in the lives of people who are, ultimately, accountable only to God. For example, the boss in a business has real authority over the worker inasmuch as he is dealing with a matter of employment, but outside of that, the boss has no authority. 

Church leaders have a special God-given responsibility to 'watch over the souls' of people who commit themselves to pastoral care. The role of this kind of leadership is identified in Scripture as that of the 'undershepherd'; that is, church leaders serve those they lead entirely on behalf of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus. The image of the shepherd is one of a servant who leads sheep to places of sustenance and safety and protects them from outside harm and from foolishness within. Similarly, church leaders exercise authority only to help people to better understand God and to walk in obedience to Him. People may choose, (but cannot be forced to) submit to the care of church leaders and obey them appropriately as a part of their submission to the care and authority of God. 
Human imperfection has led to many abuses of church authority, so we are wise to be careful to see that a church leader’s exercise of authority is always open to scrutiny and accountability in the light of God’s word. 
The concept of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ also has implications for the method of operation of leadership. Leaders can see the people they lead as a means to make the leaders’ vision, mission, or ministry more successful - and people become ‘pawns’ in the leader’s great game of life. Alternatively, leaders can see the people they lead as God's servants, gifted potential ministers of God’s kingdom into the society around them. The latter kind of leader will want to see the people they lead become more successful in their walk with and service of God. Such leaders will look to nurture people's gifts, encourage them to find God's peculiar call on their lives, and seek to release them to minister where God calls them.
2.  The universal need for leadership
A thoughtful perusal of the Bible leaves one in no doubt that God identifies we humans (somewhat unflatteringly!) as 'sheep' in need of shepherding. This is obviously true in a broader social context than our spiritual need of the Great Shepherd or of church discipleship. In all spheres of life (political, economic, scientific, educational, cultural etc), creative and productive development invariably follows the vision and action of gifted leaders. Conversely, communities without visionary and strong leadership suffer disillusionment, dissipation, lack of progress, and, eventually, social disintegration.
It seems that God’s plan for the peaceful, free, and prosperous operation of human community has properly constituted human leadership as one of its key elements. 
3.  The servant nature of leadership
In his training of His leaders-to-be, Jesus distinguished between 'gentilic' (self-seeking) leadership  and leadership that is based on the principles of humility and service (e.g., Matthew 20:24–28). The essential difference between these two kinds of leadership is the attitude of the leaders to themselves and the people they lead.
Jesus indicates that only the servant kind of leadership will be of use in the building of His eternal kingdom, so there is an obvious application of His teaching to Church leaders, Christian parents, and other Christian leaders. 
Distinguishing between the attitudes of 'gentilic' and servant leadership, however, is just as relevant to leadership in any sphere of society, whether the leaders and those being led are Christian or not. A biblical Christian perspective of leadership will make any leader, Christian or otherwise, more capable of leading in a way that is appropriate for the development of a free, peaceful and productive community. 
The biblical Christian perspective of leadership is characterized by an attitude of service. Leaders see themselves as the servants of those that they lead. In contrast to self-seeking leaders, who may seek to further their own reputation, profit, egos, or programs by using those they lead as 'consumer items', servant leaders put self-interest aside to look to the needs of the people they lead and to enhance the mission of the organization that they serve. The mission-mindedness and passion of servant leaders is tempered by their refusal to abuse people in reaching their productivity goals. Servant leaders will inspire and empower people to find their place and function within an organization rather than bully or manipulate them. When correction needs to be brought by a servant leader, it will be done with the best interests of both the one being corrected and the mission of the organization concerned.
Whether in the Church, business, politics, or volunteer organizations, the biblical Christian 'formula' for leadership will be effective in producing orderly, peaceful, productive, and pleasant community. This is illustrated by the fact that much contemporary leadership theory, although it is not all ostensibly Christian, advocates the application of some of these principles to modern business and organizational culture. 

Hello Ian et al,

What a great topic and indeed worthy of in-depth research and/or study. The home work set by Ian has been invaluable, provoking and, to a certain extent, unsettling.

There are many questions circulating in my mind, some I have already came up with an answer but need confirmation, others require a guiding hand.

To begin with, the first NT reference to Church is found in Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”. Is the Church infallible? Surely Jesus’ statement, “the gates of Hades will not overcome it” points to this conclusion...infallibility of the Church. Will He not (as His bride) “maker her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless”? Ephesians 52:6-27

This thought stems from Ian’s post, “Thought six: the entire witness of Scripture is one of submission to authority. First to God through Christ; second to those in positions of authority (whether secular or religious); third each to one and another in Christ. A Christian simply does not have the luxury of choosing not to be in submission to hierarchy, as according to Paul, such remains part of the Created Order. Furthermore, the Christian Church has always been a "work-in-progress". There are no perfect churches, if there were, then three-quarters of Paul's letters wouldn't have had to be written! Acknowledging this, endure we must with what we have.”

I certainly have no desire to submit to an RF ‘pastor’ or ‘house leader’ unless I know that such congregation falls under the definition of a Church...one holy catholic apostolic. (Mark of the true church)

As you can imagine, just the ‘mark of the church’ leaves me to ponder the inevitable, “do all roads lead to Rome”. I am rather cautious in my path as I can envisage a direction to Rome growing stronger should infallibility reign supreme! (Not to mention the Apostolicity of the Church consisting in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which He commissioned to carry out His work...no other body save this is the Church of Christ! Again to Matthew 16:18)

Bless you all

Akriboo

(Message edited by Akriboo On 19/05/2009 01:24:34)

Good evening, Akriboo; long-time, no-hear.

To begin with, the first NT reference to Church is found in Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”. Is the Church infallible? Surely Jesus’ statement, “the gates of Hades will not overcome it” points to this conclusion...infallibility of the Church.

No it doesn't, the passage points to the constancy and endurance of the Church in spite of the machinations of the Evil One.

I certainly have no desire to submit to an RF ‘pastor’ or ‘house leader’ unless I know that such congregation falls under the definition of a Church...one holy catholic apostolic. (Mark of the true church)

Well, such is one set of 'marks', to be certain. 'One' implies a Church united (by the Spirit) under Christ. 'Holy' means to be set about for God's purposes. 'Catholic' infers universality, a Church that isn't restricted by geography, time, culture or circumstances. 'Apostolic' directs us to the nature of the Church's witness and ministry. None of these marks, by the way, are limited in application to the Church of Rome.

As you can imagine, just the ‘mark of the church’ leaves me to ponder the inevitable, “do all roads lead to Rome”.

Not by a very long shot! To begin with, the Roman Catholic Church isn't the only ancient communion that understands herself to be defined by the Patristic 'marks': so too do the respective national Orthodox, for example. And, of course, the Protestant arm of the Western Church identifies with the 'marks' too.

I am rather cautious in my path as I can envisage a direction to Rome growing stronger should infallibility reign supreme!

Well, I really don't understand why you'd think that. After all, the entire New Testament clearly demonstrates that the Christian Church isn't infallible in her ways, practices and observances. So my advice, don't be too narrow in your understanding of where the 'marks' point, or what they infer.

Blessings,

Ian