Too many people seem to be equivocating on the assembled church. They simply project Paul's epistles onto the modern day First Baptist, or Tenth Presyterian, or whatever. That's actually *not* the type of assembly Paul or the other Apostles were familiar with. Indeed I wonder if the early gathered church would recognize very much in common with the modern day gathered church.
For example how much money is being spent by modern churches for their buildings, infrastructure, maintenance, media, etc. that would be utterly foreign to the early church? How much of their budgets do modern churches earmark for missions vs. the building debt for example?
I happen to be on our local church's finance team and I know these figures well, and they're often a source of trouble in my spirit.
What would occur if "the churches" failed, I'm talking about the physical organizations not the organism - the brick and mortar facades not the Body.
The church would continue. The Lord Jesus Christ will build it. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. It would meet in homes, and continue steadfastly in the Apostles teaching, and the breaking of bread and prayers as the Lord added to its number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47).
This is what our local church did before we were able to get a building, and I think we were spiritually healthier and more vigorous in prayer and bold for the gospel mission before, I'm sad and ashamed to say.
I guess I'm just less worried than a lot of other folks seem to be about the continuance of the modern church model.
While that raises some valid issues in their own right, the question at issue isn't a building but meeting together. The building is instrumental to meeting together, whether it's a building designed for "church" or a house church. Corporate worship out-of-doors is the same principle. But if for no other reason, buildings are sometimes necessary to protect against the elements.
The author has a high Presbyterian ecclesiology, so I think he overemphases an authority structure in his definition of what constitutes a "real" church.
Hmmm...I dunno...
ReplyDeleteToo many people seem to be equivocating on the assembled church. They simply project Paul's epistles onto the modern day First Baptist, or Tenth Presyterian, or whatever. That's actually *not* the type of assembly Paul or the other Apostles were familiar with. Indeed I wonder if the early gathered church would recognize very much in common with the modern day gathered church.
For example how much money is being spent by modern churches for their buildings, infrastructure, maintenance, media, etc. that would be utterly foreign to the early church? How much of their budgets do modern churches earmark for missions vs. the building debt for example?
I happen to be on our local church's finance team and I know these figures well, and they're often a source of trouble in my spirit.
What would occur if "the churches" failed, I'm talking about the physical organizations not the organism - the brick and mortar facades not the Body.
The church would continue. The Lord Jesus Christ will build it. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. It would meet in homes, and continue steadfastly in the Apostles teaching, and the breaking of bread and prayers as the Lord added to its number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47).
This is what our local church did before we were able to get a building, and I think we were spiritually healthier and more vigorous in prayer and bold for the gospel mission before, I'm sad and ashamed to say.
I guess I'm just less worried than a lot of other folks seem to be about the continuance of the modern church model.
While that raises some valid issues in their own right, the question at issue isn't a building but meeting together. The building is instrumental to meeting together, whether it's a building designed for "church" or a house church. Corporate worship out-of-doors is the same principle. But if for no other reason, buildings are sometimes necessary to protect against the elements.
DeleteThat's true, what caught my eye were the proposed solutions which uniformly assumed a modern church model.
DeleteThe author has a high Presbyterian ecclesiology, so I think he overemphases an authority structure in his definition of what constitutes a "real" church.
DeleteAh, yes that would make sense of his proposals. There are other viable solutions of course.
Delete