Evidence for God from Science

I wasn't necessarily speaking just of your experience, but in general....the larger the church the harder it is for those with needs to be noticed. Or rather, the more the church needs to work at making it easier.

I have found that vast majority of people are willing to help, but are swamped with the tyranny of the urgent and the immediacy of the needs in front of them. They need concrete ways to help, some are genuinely oblivious, others are selfish...unfortunately we have a nation of milk=drinking Christians.

zoegirl wrote:I wasn't necessarily speaking just of your experience, but in general....the larger the church the harder it is for those with needs to be noticed. Or rather, the more the church needs to work at making it easier.

I have found that vast majority of people are willing to help, but are swamped with the tyranny of the urgent and the immediacy of the needs in front of them. They need concrete ways to help, some are genuinely oblivious, others are selfish...unfortunately we have a nation of milk=drinking Christians.

Hence my point. Institutional Christianity contributes to this state of affairs more than it leads to maturity, deepening relationships and expressions of body life.

but do you really think the institution is to blame, but rather a loss of focus?

zoegirl wrote:but do you really think the institution is to blame, but rather a loss of focus?

When the institutions and organizations are not rooted in scripture to begin with as they are being practiced, then I have to ask, why are we seeking to preserve them and maintain them? Appealing to the longevity of their existence is an argument for the preserving of tradition and it's an amazing thing to me to see so many who otherwise, would maintain a position of sola scriptura, departing in effect from it, in this instance.

Institutions can be nuetral in some areas, but in many areas I think the practices and emphasis within traditional institutional churches actually, by their very inherent effects and impacts upon those who follow without thinking, creates passive christians and a class division between clergy and laity that leaves the laity believing that they are not called and not capable of serving in the capicity of the priesthood of all believers.

I realize that is very threatening to many, and I'm beginning to feel like I need to back off a little on this thread because I am passionate about this subject and it's not my purpose to relegate all institutional christians to an assessment of shallow and culturally convenient christianity, but then, the surveys and statistics coming from Barna and even secular polling like gallup shows pretty clearly the while some forms of Churches are seemingly growing and advancing (despite the overall decline taking place now) the actual impact on the culture is hardly discernible and in fact, churches are reflecting our culture more than affecting it.

Something is seriously wrong. If the institutions and their approaches aren't scriptural to begin with as they're being practiced and this is the result, then I think it begs the question. Why try to "reform" it when another option is to return to Christian culture and community as it was practiced in the early church before it was made a state religion and all the baggage of the Greco-Roman pagan temple worship was introduced?

Woke up this mornin' turned on my TV set
There in livin' color was somethin' I can't forget
This man was preachin' at me.. yeah.. layin' on the charm
Asking me for 20 with 10,000 on his arm

He wore designer clothing and a big smile on his face
Selling me salvation while they sang Amazing Grace
Asking me for money when he had all the signs of wealth
Almost wrote a check out.. yeah.. but then I asked myself…

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star
If he came back tomorrow there's something I'd like to know
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show

Would Jesus be political if he came back to earth
Have his second home in Palm Springs.. yeah.. but try to hide his worth
Take money from those poor folks when He comes back again
And admit He's talked to all those preachers who said they'd been-a talking to Him

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star
If he came back tomorrow there's something I'd like to know
Could ya tell me - Would Jesus wear a rolex

Would Jesus wear a rolex?

No he wouldn't.

Nor would he travel the earth telling poor people if they gave him all their money God would make them financially rich in return (e.g. the heresy of the prosperity gospel).

Canuckster1127 wrote:I realize that is very threatening to many, and I'm beginning to feel like I need to back off a little on this thread because I am passionate about this subject and it's not my purpose to relegate all institutional christians to an assessment of shallow and culturally convenient christianity, but then, the surveys and statistics coming from Barna and even secular polling like gallup shows pretty clearly the while some forms of Churches are seemingly growing and advancing (despite the overall decline taking place now) the actual impact on the culture is hardly discernible and in fact, churches are reflecting our culture more than affecting it.

I don't find it threatening, Bart. Maybe you could give some more details, if you had time. That would provide some more to think about. I think it's true that the church in trying to reach people copy the culture too much, and then it seems like the culture is a good thing to emulate . . . and we should just try to fit in . . . that can be the subtle message, it seems to me. When we use the culture around us to influence others, it can end up being a road for weaker believers leading in the opposite direction. Just a thought.

I don't find it threatening, but I have to wonder if we are examining all fo the factors here.

Post-modern thought, size of the church, the lack of serious growth, the feel-good thinking and theology, the lack of emphasis on repentance and confession, ....the lack of service....all of these factor into a very bloated and selfish and milk-fed church.

I just can't target one thing when all of these factor into the problem.

That being said, I have no problem with developing a new "institution", explain the model for me please Bart, maybe I'll have a better sense of the comparisons.

zoegirl wrote:I don't find it threatening, but I have to wonder if we are examining all fo the factors here.

Post-modern thought, size of the church, the lack of serious growth, the feel-good thinking and theology, the lack of emphasis on repentance and confession, ....the lack of service....all of these factor into a very bloated and selfish and milk-fed church.

I just can't target one thing when all of these factor into the problem.

That being said, I have no problem with developing a new "institution", explain the model for me please Bart, maybe I'll have a better sense of the comparisons.

That's a tall order but a fair question.

For the record, Viola and Barna are both pretty deliberate to say the Pagan Christianity, or the deconstruction of the institutional church is not the whole message. After it, the twin book "Reimagining Church" addresses what church biblically looks like and how that can translate. Viola also has put out "From Eternity to Here" and "Finding Organic Church" which I've also read and which are helping in the context of the organic fellowship I'm part of that is just now kicking off.

I can't possibly hope to summarize all books entirely in the context of a forum but I will attempt to do what I can in the next short while.

Bart,

I hope you don't mind me asking you a couple of questions. You have clearly been on the “front line” where as have not. I have Viola and Barna's book on my order list along with “Reimagining Church” as I am intrigued after reading an interview with Bill Lollar.

Now, Martin Luther is quoted in part 1 of this interview (where I'm up to) as saying that the church was not a building or an institution. I've had this quote thrown at me in a previous debate as preemptive for an attack on the church and its historical legitimacy according to the scriptures. I've heard it said that there was no actual church, i.e. a building, but rather just a community; the community *was* the church. Now I don't actually go along with this, but wondered what you thought…?

“Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Luther.

To me, Luther was especially angered by the hierarchy which came with Catholicism and Papacy; endless councils and indulgences… I don't think Luther was decrying the actual building of buildings (earlier reference) for the community (church) to house itself. For me, the community *is* the church but also the building (the church) which housed the gathering of the community is also the church.

Am I making sense? Please pull this apart if I'm not as I need to be corrected if you think I'm wrong.

Dan

Canuckster1127 wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I don't find it threatening, but I have to wonder if we are examining all fo the factors here.

Post-modern thought, size of the church, the lack of serious growth, the feel-good thinking and theology, the lack of emphasis on repentance and confession, ....the lack of service....all of these factor into a very bloated and selfish and milk-fed church.

I just can't target one thing when all of these factor into the problem.

That being said, I have no problem with developing a new "institution", explain the model for me please Bart, maybe I'll have a better sense of the comparisons.

That's a tall order but a fair question.

For the record, Viola and Barna are both pretty deliberate to say the Pagan Christianity, or the deconstruction of the institutional church is not the whole message. After it, the twin book "Reinventing Christianity" addresses what church biblically looks like and how that can translate. Viola also has put out "From Eternity to Here" and "Finding Organic Church" which I've also read and which are helping in the context of the organic fellowship I'm part of that is just now kicking off.

I can't possibly hope to summarize all books entirely in the context of a forum but I will attempt to do what I can in the next short while.

I found a copy of the book and will be reading it. Please do share your thoughts on the matter. I mean it. We all seem to want a better paradigm. If I could see a sweeping revival begin and get involved in it before I die that would really be something special.

Hey Bart,

So I just managed to get caught up on this thread. I can understand you feeling the need to back off a bit. Don't. Having read PG (but not the others yet), I can agree with Viola's argument that the vast majority of what we think about church is SO ingrained that any other way of looking at it seems odd. Even . . . unscriptural. Ultimately, this might be something the board needs to explore over a series of threads, which in an organic sense, would be wonderful.

I'd like to ask you a very practical question if I could, as I'm broadly already sold on the organic definition of the church (minus one caveat, which I'll explain below). In your experience (and, of course, you reading of Scripture):

As much as I agree that an intellectual understanding of Scripture is not sufficient (it leads to the "cerebral Protestantism" Viola laments), I also believe that an anti-intellectual one is just as dangerous. In light of that, what is the place of teaching (not exhortation), especially of theological and doctrinal matters, in a church setting? Once we dispose of the sermon (which I'm all to glad to do), by what means does the church become equipped with the knowledge of the faith?

My own answer lies in the point at which I depart from Viola and Barna. My fundamental agreement with them is in the every-member-participation model. The monologue (sermon/homily) I think does a great disservice to the church. Yet I would not go so far as to say that the eldership is not an office but rather only a function. I do see them in terms of officials (thus, Heb. 13:17). I would see Timothy not as an apostolic worker (I think there were ONLY twelve apostles, the eleven plus Paul), but as a model of what the modern elder/bishop/pastor/whatever-you-want-to-call-it should be. And I think there should be a plurality of such people in the church. I just don't think their job is to stand up on Sunday morning at 10:30 and given a forty-five minute monologue. Their work, rather, should be done house to house, knee to knee, family to family, over the kitchen table.

Now, perhaps the only difference between myself and Viola here is in that I am willing to designate the elder as an official, whereas they are not. In that case, if we both see them functioning in the same way, our difference may be merely semantic. But in that case, I still return to my practical question. I have been in what I think Viola would label a truly organic church for some time now (two of them, as a matter of fact), and I am absolutely convinced that the REASON Christianity is virtually dead in the West is thanks to the Institutional Church. Likewise, situation's like Age's, as you well know, are much better handled in a biblical model rather than the corporate model we have today. So all the benefits aside, as we agree on them, in practice, how do you see the equipping side of the church's function to work?

Thanks again for the great discussion!

DannyM wrote:Bart,

I hope you don't mind me asking you a couple of questions. You have clearly been on the “front line” where as have not. I have Viola and Barna's book on my order list along with “Reimagining Church” as I am intrigued after reading an interview with Bill Lollar.

Now, Martin Luther is quoted in part 1 of this interview (where I'm up to) as saying that the church was not a building or an institution. I've had this quote thrown at me in a previous debate as preemptive for an attack on the church and its historical legitimacy according to the scriptures. I've heard it said that there was no actual church, i.e. a building, but rather just a community; the community *was* the church. Now I don't actually go along with this, but wondered what you thought…?

“Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Luther.

To me, Luther was especially angered by the hierarchy which came with Catholicism and Papacy; endless councils and indulgences… I don't think Luther was decrying the actual building of buildings (earlier reference) for the community (church) to house itself. For me, the community *is* the church but also the building (the church) which housed the gathering of the community is also the church.

Am I making sense? Please pull this apart if I'm not as I need to be corrected if you think I'm wrong.

Dan

Hi Dan,

The short answer is that it's pretty clear in the NT that the term "church" is referring to believers in terms of a group of people, or an organism. The greek word "ecclessia" means "assembly of people." It was used in contexts outside the NT commonly for political assemblies as well. It referred to the people in an assembly, not the location or building. When you look at the terms and metaphors used in the NT, it's striking that they are all organic in the sense that they speak of the church as a living body, the bride of christ, and even in one case when it alludes to a building, it refers to us as "living stones". It's pretty clear.

You have to put Luther in the context of his day. I would tend to agree with you that Luther wasn't necessarily decrying the building of building. Remember that Luther's original desire was to see the Catholic Church reformed, not to leave. As things unfolded, the Reformation was about a great many number of things and carried a lot of different factors. It was in part fueled by the printing press and the resultant increase of literacy in society and as a result of that people were able to read and interpret the scriptures themselves. It was in part a political movement of sovereign nations to cast off the ties to the Roman Catholic Church which had tremendous political power and wealth. Monarchies saw an opportunity to confiscate their land and buildings and raise up churches that were loyal to themselves rather than a Pope in Italy. That's why the Anglican Church, for example, is still headed by the King or Queen of England to this day.

Now, I believe Luther was sincere in his motives and actions, but that doesn't means that politically and socially other factors weren't playing in on them as well and being capitalized upon by others.

The reality is, at least how I see it, that you'd be hard pressed to find many churches that don't say that they believe the "church" in the NT is referring to the bride of christ and the body of believers. In most cases however, all that appears to me to be is pious rhetoric because it doesn't translate into how they do things and what their priorities are. Remember that the early church didn't have buildings or dedicated meeting places for about the first 300 years and then things changed very quickly when Rome adopted Christianity as its State Religion and overnight absorbed and adopted many of the locations, priests and practices of the prior Greek/Roman pantheon of gods.

The Reformation was a major shift in one sense, but the changes to the practices of church when you look at them in whole, while significant in many areas, overall, haven't really changed all that much. The sermon in Protestant Churches is more the center of the time and emphasis in the service as opposed to the mass in the Roman Catholic Church, but both are present in most churches. The Reformation in terms of its impact really wasn't a reformation of the church as a whole as the RCC is still larger than protestantism combined and since the Reformation took place the Protestant movement has continued to break away from one another in all sorts of splits and schisms to where today, by conservative estimates you have about 33,000 different groups and denominations.

So you are making sense and I hope this answer helps. Don't take my word for it though. It's easy to study and see for yourself and decide if what I'm telling you is accurate and fair.

blessings,

bart

ageofknowledge wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I don't find it threatening, but I have to wonder if we are examining all fo the factors here.

Post-modern thought, size of the church, the lack of serious growth, the feel-good thinking and theology, the lack of emphasis on repentance and confession, ....the lack of service....all of these factor into a very bloated and selfish and milk-fed church.

I just can't target one thing when all of these factor into the problem.

That being said, I have no problem with developing a new "institution", explain the model for me please Bart, maybe I'll have a better sense of the comparisons.

That's a tall order but a fair question.

For the record, Viola and Barna are both pretty deliberate to say the Pagan Christianity, or the deconstruction of the institutional church is not the whole message. After it, the twin book "Reinventing Christianity" addresses what church biblically looks like and how that can translate. Viola also has put out "From Eternity to Here" and "Finding Organic Church" which I've also read and which are helping in the context of the organic fellowship I'm part of that is just now kicking off.

I can't possibly hope to summarize all books entirely in the context of a forum but I will attempt to do what I can in the next short while.

I found a copy of the book and will be reading it. Please do share your thoughts on the matter. I mean it. We all seem to want a better paradigm. If I could see a sweeping revival begin and get involved in it before I die that would really be something special.

Age, I'll try. A lot of this is still forming and percolating for me but I have been immersed in it for the past year or so and I'll try and be fair to Viola and Barna and present what I'm thinking as well. I don't believe I have all the answers, or that following this path will be easier. If anything, I'm sure I don't have all the answers and that organic church will be messier and harder in many regards than institutional church. But then, I'm not choosing this path to be easier.

blessings,

bart

Jac,

I typed out a long response and then hit submit only to find my internet had disconnected and I lost it.

I won't try to recreate it exactly but I wanted to you know if this sounds terse or choppy, I'm just tryint to got the point together and then maybe we can delve deeper.

In terms of the semantics you raise between what you see as elders and what Viola is saying, there may be a subtle difference but I agree it's not practically all that significant if you're saying that the practice of the early church was pretty much a flat hierarchy with elders arising within the local churches and over time being recognized for what they were doing already. It in many ways reflects the difference between formal and informal leadership. Even in hierarchical organizations it's recognized that there are informal leaders who lead by virtue of the respect they have from others due to a variety of factors. I don't believe elders were given veto votes or given the right to vote outside of the whole congregation. By virture of the recognition and respect of those in the assembly they might sway opinion and lead in that manner, but decisions were made by consensus of the entire assembly and what an elder was then in that context doesn't resemble very closely what pastors have been made today and even elders in many contexts. The word is the same but the practice is very foreign from anything modeled in the NT.

Your question regarding teaching resonates with me, because I've always been something of a teacher. Teaching is a legitimate function within the church and I think there are teachers. Again, it's a matter of function and context, not formal hierarchical position. How did teaching work in the early church? Teaching is a part of the gifting of elders. There was teaching long before homilies in the Catholic Church and 3 Point Sermons in Protestant Churches.

It's part of the normal working of organic growth and services. The corporate conversation and back and forth will include clarifications, teaching and even at times loving correction. There were mentoring and discipling relationships then as there can be and should be now. There's nothing that rules our meetings outside the corporate organic meeting for bible study and instruction. There's not necessarily anything wrong with formal teaching in the context of school and seminary in my opinion, although, by necessity in many cases such instruction is a product of institutionalism and supports such a system as a feeder for workers. In an organic setting, such instruction would possible look somewhat different as most taking the training would not necessarily be full time in ministry to where that's where they derive all their support and income.

Also there were itinerate teachers who were recognized I think in the early church who would come it to help start a church or to instruct, but that would typically just be for a season and then they would leave.

Part of what I'm seeing in the organic model is really opening my eyes. I've been a professional in institutions for about 20 years in different forms and capacities. I've been tempted at times to look to be a planter of sorts and drive the planting of a new organic fellowship, but what's been impressed on me is that I have no business seeking to do that until I have several years of simply being a part of an organic fellowship and learning and growing as a participant. In that regard I think the fellowship itself will be the context in which I learn and also express the gifts I have in that ares.

I don't know if that answers your question well. I'm willing to go deeper into it if you like and pull out the books and reference there and in scripture some of the models there, but I hope it helps as a start.

blessings,

bart

Where is the accountability in that model? What stops cult leaders and false teachers from arising and leading many astray within the body? I'm not seeing it.