Commenter: Please explain what you mean by:â€community as Jesus exemplified itâ€. Thanks
It is the community that Jesus created and demonstrated during his earthly ministry.
I would describe it as:
Cross cultural: Jesus crossed every available cultural barrier to announce and practice the Kingdom.
Counter cultural: Jesus was offering an alternative to the dominant cultural and religious options in his world.
Inclusive: Jesus was creating community that included all of the excluded at every level. He dd this– as he did all of his community movement– with total intentionality.
Kingdom Gospel-centered: Jesus the King made the reality of the present and coming Kingdom of God the center of his movement. This center was clearly seen, and stood in contrast to the “Kingdom boundary” thinking of other Jews.
God-centered: God is present and active, as Father, creator, and redeemer of a broken and lost world.
Confrontative: Jesus confronted the powers at every level, using the weapons of love, truth and the Holy Spirit.
Radical: Jesus’ version of community was radical in its nature and demands. Compare it to the expectations people had of family and religion.
Sacrificial: Jesus’ community was identified with sacrifice, i.e. a willingness to suffer that God’s will might be done.
Healing: Jesus’ movement was restorative, including praying for and working for healing of persons and relationships. (This included spiritual warfare and deliverance.)
Didactic: Jesus constantly taught his disciples his constantly reflect on the meaning of the Kingdom of God.
Prayerful: Jesus taught his disciples to pray.
Invitational and Open: All were invited to come. All were invited to believe in Jesus as the messiah.
Non-institutional (in its essence): Jesus gave few if any indications that his movement would take on serious institutional forms. It may have institutional expressions and fruits, but that isn’t the essence of the movement.
Non-political.
Missional: Jesus’ movement was focused on the Gospel ministry and engaged in other kinds of ministry that established the presence and power of God’s compassionate Kingdom.
Jesus shaped and Jesus centered.
Becoming part of this movement was what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Hey Tony, thanks for responding without throwing any big rocks. I’m aware that I’m a wee bit radical in my views, and I have a nasty and annoying habit of questioning everything under the sun. I probably wouldn’t have fared very well (or lived very long) in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Firstly, I’d like to address your statement that the Church is the authority, citing I Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17. In the first verse Paul calls the church “the pillar and support of the truth.” I take Paul to mean is that a key indentifying aspect of the church is that it upholds the truth, which is Christ Himself, the source and embodiment of all truth. To interpret that to mean that whatever the church decides to support and uphold (or mandate) magically becomes truth … I’m sorry, I just can’t buy that. Jesus is the truth, the way, the life, and the head and supreme authority over His church, and when we collectively uphold His truth, then we’re being His body. If we’re not doing that — but rather upholding our own understanding, opinions, traditions, and preferred ways of doing things and calling it truth — then we might want to examine ourselves.
In regards to the other verse you cited, I don’t pretend to know the full scope of what Jesus meant by “binding and loosing,” but if you go on to read verses 19 and 20, apparently just two or three people can do it. I’m guessing that Jesus is talking about the supernatural power of getting together with other believers and praying in faith according to God’s will. It seems a bit of a stretch to interpret that as Jesus giving blank-check approval to absolutely any practice, policy, ritual, or doctrine the church chooses to establish.
As far as church as an institution, professional clergy, liturgies, and the like, I have my opinions, but I don’t claim to know God’s mind in these matters. When you get into issues of postBiblical church history, it always comes down to the question: Was this orchestrated or approved by God or not? The tendency is to always say “yes” when it comes to those things embraced by your own church institution or denomination and “no” to everything else. I know it’s not going to happen anytime soon, but I think Christian institutions would do well to take some time to examine themselves and their history, and dare to ask the questions: Where did this come from and why do we do it? The answers they find might surprise them.
LikeLike
Ron, I doubt that you will find everything in the Bible that the Apostles taught, because they probably didn’t feel the need to write down everything in it that everyone would have known, such as liturgy, which would have shared many common traits with Judaic practices (chanting of psalms, reading of scripture, sermonizing, hymns, and of course Eucharist). Of course, that did develop somewhat over time so you have the various liturgical traditions (Gregory, James, Basil, etc.) but they all are interconnected and do the same thing in similar but diverse ways. Another thing to consider is the Bible tells us that the Church is the authority. 1 Tim. 3:15 , Matt. 18:17 .
Holders of “sola scriptura” will tend to practically canonize anything written outside of scripture 1600 AD and beyond that says “sola scriptura” but ignore extra-biblical references from the early church (pre-Constantine) that would refute that very notion, either in word or deed.
If you look back to the history of the church in the volumes of patristic liturature (works of the “fathers” who are those who knew the Apostles, who learned from them) you will find there is much support for both the physical institution and the liturgical forms. One such example is the Didache.
LikeLike
Just from studying the NT, I would have to say that the first century church was much more relational and focused on healthy, Christ-centered relationships than it was on developing any specific institutional or organizational structure. Sure, they had leaders, but there is little or no Biblical evidence that they had a hierarchy of religious “offices.” Take for example Paul’s method of establishing leaders in the churches he helped found. Read the book of Acts and you’ll see that Paul did not set up leaders immediately. He made sure that the local community of believers got started on the right foot, and then he left them to their own devices without any official leadership. It wasn’t until he revisited these churches (sometimes years later) that he ordained (publicly confirmed or recognized) elders — which I might add was a common Greek term most commonly used to refer to men of proven standing and character within a community or family. Basically, Paul allowed time for leaders to emerge naturally and then publicly recognized those who had already stepped up to the plate. That sounds like an excellent idea to me.
As far as any kind of liturgy or set order of services, I don’t see any evidence that they had either. The closest thing to instructions for order in church gatherings can be found in I Corinthians. Check out chapter 14 (particularly verses 26-33) and you’ll find Paul encouraging a state of affairs in which everyone has something from the Holy Spirit to bring to the table for the collective edification of the church. He only stipulates that they do so in a polite and orderly manner. No liturgy. No bulletin. Just the Holy Spirit communicating and acting through individual members of Christ’s body. It’s beatifully simplistic and (if you’ve ever had the privilige of witnessing this kind of thing in action) awe-inspiring to behold. In my opinion, the sad fact that this kind of collective, interactive, spontaneously Spirit-led body ministry was eventually abandoned (and even outlawed) stands as one of the biggest tragedies of church history.
I’m just gonna state this plainly, so please forgive me if you’re deeply offended and feel free to inform me if you think I’m way off base. I believe that the church’s gradual evolution from the simplistic and relational to the complex and organizational was not part of Christ’s original design or plan for His bride-to-be. Looking honestly at church history, I would say that transition took place as a result of moving the central focus from love-based community to doctrinal correctness (which was an understandable reaction to the rise of false teachings) in the late first and early second centuries, the church fathers inventing and then widening the seperation of clergy and laity in the second and third centuries, the marriage of the church and the Roman government in the fourth century, and the basic fallen tendency of we humans to be control freaks, regardless of what century we live in. I think these changes involved not just the addition of organizational structure and hierarchal government, but also a shift in the church’s basic character and focus.
Did Christ continue to work in and through His church even after we thoroughly institutionalized ourselves? I believe He did and still does. Can we as Christians dump all the religious baggage we’ve collected over the centuries and rediscover simple, Spirit-led, relational community in Christ? With His help, I believe we can.
That’s all I’m gonna say.
LikeLike
Most translations are going with Simon the “Canaanite” and most NT scholars believe the Zealots were more indigenous resistance (brigands to Roman authority) than a formal movement/party.
Sue: That’s fair. I’ve never heard Peter called a zealot. But there is a disciple called Simon “Zealotes” or some variant.
LikeLike
imonk,
Not being a perfect person I always leave open the possiblity of being wrong. I can’t tell you where I learned that.
LikeLike
Surfnetter – you could have been a lawyer? Lucky escape! 😉
LikeLike
Is the “Peter the Zealot” thing possibly a confusion of Peter who was Simon with Simon the Zealot?
Or if we like some more confusion spread on our bread, Simon the possibly-means-‘from-Canaan’? 😉
LikeLike
>Peter was a zealot.
What?
Where are you getting this?
Could you give me the name of any legitimate New Testament scholarly work that believes that? Bart Ehrman and Dan Brown excepted.
LikeLike
Bob,
Jesus is God. My pastor only human.
I am not putting down people who can’t read or write. As someone else said: I want a doctor who went to medical school.
LikeLike
Great list. My pastor (SBC) thinks so to. Of course, he is not a true believer SBC (more calvin than Arminius, thinks drinking is ok and has even been known to dance with his wife)
LikeLike
sue kephart,
Jesus didn’t have seminary training; therefore, to quote your own words, he must have been “a preacher who can barley [sic] read and write” and since, also to use your own words, you will not accept a pastor who does not have seminary training because of, apparently, your “tradtion” [sic], tell me this:
What will you do with Jesus?
A preacher who can barley [sic] read and write might be just what you need.
Perhaps you have made the word of God of none effect by your tradtion [sic].
LikeLike
imonk,
Could you have confused the essenes with the zealots? Peter was a zealot.
LikeLike
Sue — Most probably were illiterate. The Jews were surprised that Jesus could read. And being educated in tradition and history was essential for survival. It was like us knowing the right price to pay for gasoline or whether you put milk or orange juice in your coffee. Their religion was the air they breathed, whether they liked it or not.
The very fact that there is a open discussion about what a Christian community should look like displays the stark difference of the civilization we were all born into compared to where the world has been up until only a couple of centuries ago. We would be having this meeting in some dark cellar somewhere wondering if any of us was a spy planning to turn us all in to the Inquisition. (And yes — Protestants had them too.)
The “freedom” that we have come to consider our birthright as Modern Westerners, is really death, when you think of it. I find that is my biggest obstacle in becoming a member of God’s Community — no one can tell me what to do — not even God — I’m an American, d–m it! 🙂
LikeLike
The Roman Empire was quite a sophisticated culture as well as was the Jewish culture at that time. I think they could read and write (they wrote letters). I don’t think any of them were stupid. They were educated in their religious tradition and history.
LikeLike
Martha and all — “And they weren’t all unlearned; besides which, just because some of them were fishermen doesn’t mean they were illiterate or stupid.”
Back then most fishermen may have been unable to read or write, but I guarantee none of them were stupid. There are no stupid successful fishermen. Attention to detail and being able to decipher what is going on in the unseen world under the surface is essential.
Today’s American fishing community (what’s left of it) boasts more upper level degrees then most would imagine. I have a year of law school on my resume, along with three undergraduate degrees.
As far as sheer stupidity goes, I think priests and ministers have being displaying quite a bit of that of late — don’t you …?
LikeLike
I’m with Surfnetter on this (good grief, amity is breaking out all over!)
The world is part of the Community of God. We don’t – as Christians – live in little bubbles; unless we never set foot outside our front door, we’re going to be meeting other people, even if it’s only the guy who comes to read the electricity meter or the girl on the supermarket checkout.
How we interact with them, how we live, what example we give – this is all part of community. Unless someone is seriously going to get up on his or her hind legs and say that we should behave in one way to non-Christians or the unregenerate, and save our Christian fellowship for our own cosy little circle of like-minded believers?
LikeLike
*sigh* I’m about at the stage that I’ll scream out loud if I hear one more mention of the Essenes. No offence to anyone on here, but they’ve been the catch-all group for way-out theories once too often: you want to argue that the early Church was composed of vegetarian teetotallers who lived in communes? Use the Essenes as proof! Jesus was a Buddhist? He learned this when He was with the Essenes!
If we absolutely must discuss the shape of the hierarchy, which we seem to be getting sidetracked on, regarding the point about seminary education: one of the scandals during the Reformation, which the Reformers were eager to point out, was the ‘priest simplex’; men who were licenced to say Mass but could not hear confessions or preach. The Reformers, justifiably, pointed to the scandal of men gabbling prayers they did not understand (and mangling them so that the pronunciation, words and meaning were lost) and this was one of the things addressed in the Counter-Reformation, and why seminary education and proper training was insisted upon.
The Apostles were a special case, they knew Jesus personally and were under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And they weren’t all unlearned; besides which, just because some of them were fishermen doesn’t mean they were illiterate or stupid. They seem to have been fairly well up in their Jewish faith, for starters.
Once any body gets a couple of hundred years under its belt, it is going to get more complicated organisationally. When people start bringing you tangles such as “But how many gods are there in the Trinity?” and “What exactly is the nature of Jesus?”, not to mention the pitfalls of moral theology, then you need more than just “Read this verse.”
Same way we don’t rely on Granny’s home remedies to heal all our ills, but go to medical professionals who’ve undergone years of training and are highly edumacated 😉
Michael, some of the points you raise – e.g. celibate clergy – are matters of discipline, not doctrine or dogma. But I’m not interested in doing an imitation of a Catholic Apologist; can we get back to discussing what the Body of Christ might look like?
LikeLike
imonk,
In my tradtion future pastors have a year of internship. I guess you could call that mentoring. However, the basic Christian education in Bible study and other fundamentals I think need to be taught at seminary. The examples I cited are actual from non-seminary trained pastors who were mentored by a pastor who didn’t know much either.
I see you point regarding the third world and rural churches here. Whatever denomination one is in has to get busy training more people for this need.
I agree that seminary isn’t all one needs. A call to the priesthood or ministry and discerning that call is most important. In my tradition seminary grads are not ordained until they are called by a congregation. The laity have the final word if a call is valid. I like that.
LikeLike
So much of this discussion about “community” has come down to “hierarchy” and our personal ecclesiastical choices as to what we think that should look like.
But the only real choices that any of us has in any of this is the moment to moment decisions we are faced with on a daily basis. We are to “Love God with all our hearts and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.” If I do that, then the whole world becomes the “Community of God.” If I want to be seen as a member of that Community — if that is my highest goal and desire — then I am to “Love my neighbor as myself …”; everyone I come across I am to see as a member of that “Community.”
Hence — if I am thinking and acting aright — this world — as it is — is the “Christ -shaped Community of God.”
LikeLike
On the education point, I think that in our age we should look at totally new models of doing education. Example, people could read texts online at Google Books and prepare papers using Buzzword, then discuss online with Skype, talking to mentors in other cities.
Jesus didn’t “endorse” education when he was on the earth, but look at Paul, who was incredibly educated and was chosen by Jesus to write tons of the NT. And, if we’re not Marcionite, look at the OT church, where the entire canon was written and preserved by a hieratic group of priests who were out of sync with the high-places and idols syncretistic culture around them.
LikeLike
Sue-
So what do you have to say to…
Millions of third world Christians, rural churches, etc whose pastors are godly men without seminary or even the possibility? (Like the people in the New Testament?)
[I am a seminary grad, but for genuine usefulness in the Kingdom, seminary seems to be of little help or an actual hindrance in many cases. Look at what liberal seminary grads have done to the church.]
Jesus seemed to be recommending the rabbinical model, i.e. mentoring.
ms
LikeLike
Just to continue the aside on priests and bishops, for those of you who don’t know it, in the Catholic Church (I’m leaving the Anglicans, Orthodox and Lutherans to explain themselves) the priest is the representative of the bishop.
The bishop possesses the fullness of the priesthood, the bishop is the successor of the Apostles (that’s why the whole laying-on of hands in the Apostolic Succession is so important, and why the Pope has universal jurisdiction by virtue of being Bishop of Rome and successor to Peter), the bishop is the one who has the power to ordain priests (priests can’t ordain other priests), the bishop is the minister of the sacrament of Confirmation. The diocesan bishop is the ruler of his diocese and is the only one with the right to govern the members of that diocese and has the responsibility for the teaching of the faithful – this covers everything from the seninaries to the parish schools.
Trivia: the bishop’s ring is a wedding ring – it symbolises that he is ‘married’ to his diocese as Christ is Bridegroom of the Church 🙂
LikeLike
Martha,
Thank you for reminding us what the Kingdom of God is supposed to be like.
Christopher, my heart goes out to you. I just wish that I could do more than extend the hand of friendship through the Internet.
I can just imagine this scene on the road in Galilee. After the meal was done, and the dishes were washed and put up, the men and women would each separate to talk. Then, later, a single man would join the women, share in their stories, their insights and whom they saw as needy. Then and only then, would Jesus go to his bed.
LikeLike
Okay, we seem to have gotten sidetracked into ecclesiology.
What did Jesus say about the Kingdom of God? The Kingdom is like…
…a mustard seed, a man who planted a field, a woman sweeping her house looking for a lost item, leaven in the dough, a man who found a treasure in a field, a merchant seeking fine pearls, a dragnet cast into the sea (Surfnetter, this is your chance!), a landowner hiring labourers…
What picture of community can we draw from that?
As an aside, the priest/presbyter/sacerdos thing is covered in Wikipedia:
“Two different Greek words have traditionally been translated into English as priest…Both words occur in the New Testament, which draws a distinction not always observed in English. The first, presbyteros (Ancient Greek: Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος), Latinized as presbyter, is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically derived from this word; literally, however, this word means elder, and is used in neutral and non-religious contexts in Greek to refer to seniority or relative age.
…The second word, hiereus (Ancient Greek: ἱεÏεÏÏ‚), Latin sacerdos, refers to priests who offer sacrifice, such as the priesthood of the Jewish Temple, or the priests of pagan gods. The New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews draws a distinction between the Jewish priesthood and the High Priesthood of Christ; it teaches that the sacrificial atonement by Jesus Christ on Calvary has made the Jewish priesthood and its prescribed ritual sacrifices redundant. Thus, for Christians, Christ himself is the one hiereus, and Christian priests have no priesthood independent or distinct from that of Christ. As in the belief of most of Christianity (including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy) the one sacrifice of Christ, which he offered “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10) on the Cross, is made present through the Eucharist, so the one priesthood of Christ is made present through the ministerial priesthood of bishops and presbyters, who are therefore by analogy called priests, without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood.
This analogous use of the word “priest” (ἱεÏεÏÏ‚, sacerdos) for Christian ministers appears to have arisen only at the end of the second century, at first for bishops only; but by the time of Saint Cyprian, in the mid-third century, it was applied to presbyters also. The late first-century Epistle of Clement uses the terms á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎºÎ¿Ï€Î¿Ï‚ (bishop) and Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος (presbyter) interchangeably for the clergy above the rank of deacon, but for Ignatius of Antioch, who died in the early years of the second century, bishops and presbyters were already quite distinct. Elsewhere, particularly in Egypt, the distinction seems to have become established only later. By the middle of that century all the leading Christian centres had bishops distinct from the presbyters.
The word “bishop” is derived, through Latin episcopus, from the Greek word á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎºÎ¿Ï€Î¿Ï‚ (episkopos), whose original meaning was “overseer” or “supervisor”. Both English words “priest” and “presbyter” come from Greek Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος (presbyteros), originally meaning an elder, through Latin presbyter.”
LikeLike
“Inclusive: Jesus was creating community that included all of the excluded at every level. He dd this– as he did all of his community movement– with total intentionality.”
I read these words, considered what is often my daily life experience, and felt like weeping. How wonderful it must have been to be a physically disabled person in Jesus’s presence! How hard it can be to be a physically disabled person (without a job, who can’t drive) in even a *good* church today!
LikeLike
Jesus didn’t authorize organ music, stain glass windows or lots of other things churches are full of.
I want, no, I will not accept a pastor who does not have seminary training. But hey, it’s a free country. If you want a pastor who thinks the Bible was dictated down to a group of men in the time of a ruler named James it’s your right. If you want a preacher who can barley read and write and can’t pronounce most of the names in the Good Book, you are entitled.
That doesn’t mean others can’t do ministry, can’t be active in the church community. There is one Spirit and many gifts. Please don’t have my pastor have to ask me questions because I have taken an old testament history class.
LikeLike
Whatever happened to the old fashioned way of determining what God is endorsing …? i.e. — good old “signs and wonders” — not someone’s Scriptural interpretation.
When i hit on something — or, rather it hits me — that I know to be true, it’s not because of a good human argument — there are undeniable and convincing “proofs”. When that happens I can’t be moved. I heard God speak it to me.
One thing I know — God is doing His thing — He is building His “community.” He doesn’t need my help — or anybody else’s. We need Him to, in His merciful kindness, let us participate. I just pray that I don’t do too much damage. But then it’s God I’m trying to work for. The most I can hope to be is an unprofitable servant. I cannot possibly add anything — or take anything away. Any understanding of what He is doing can only help me to feel valued enough to be afforded a little Holy insight.
It doesn’t help Him a bit.
LikeLike
Are we now saying Jesus authorized educated clergy?
I gotta tell you, this thread is doing wonders for my book. Great examples of making Jesus endorse whatever our church is already doing and not doing.
Gospels? Why sure…..Jesus is commissioning even BIGGER buildings than the temple. Spencer just can’t see it.
It’s depressing. I may be really wrong, but where does some of this stuff come from?
Jesus endorsed educated clergy?
LikeLike
>I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christian clergy in this country are, in fact, of an educated middle class background.
Not in America’s largest Protestant denomination. Not in most evangelical churches under 150 members. And not in most Pentecostal churches, or rural churches, or historically black churches.
You are thinking mainlines. My denom has 35,000 churches. I doubt if a third have trained clergy.
ms
LikeLike
The church can have institutional forms. I agree.
Jesus didn’t inspire a dictionary 🙂 The perceived characteristics of an institution are so subjective it’s not worth talking about.
Jesus intentionally began a movement. It has structure. I agree. But you guys are going to say that everything in your church down to the trivia was personally authorized by Jesus. I just am not going there. Protestantism hasn’t done much better, but it ought to.
ms
LikeLike
imonk,
Sorry if my comments came across as trying to persuade you to convert. If the myriad of talented apologists out there haven’t been able to convince you, I certainly don’t think I can!
I also know many people in your position. Protestants in the pro-life movement are often inundated much like you’ve been with Catholics trying to convert them, and I know how tiring that can be, especially if you’ve done your research.
I think my point can be applied to whatever ecclesiology you like. Jesus came and appointed leaders who organized people to accomplish spiritual and temporal goals like worshiping God in an organized way and caring for the poor.
I hate to be the guy playing the dictionary card, but here I am:
Institution: an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character.
If that doesn’t describe the Church, or even the Church as you’d like her to exist, I don’t know what does. We are an organization devoted to the progress of the gospel and the care of the world, with an especially public, educational and charitable character.
It seems to me the word “institution” has gotten a bad rap. There’s nothing dirty about it.
Again, my apologies for the perceived attempt at conversion. I wish you all the best on your spiritual journey.
LikeLike
There is a characteristic that was discussed in a similar thread a while ago that I don’t see here — it is that the Kingdom/Community of Christ was/is tribal.
This is how the Jews stayed a homogeneous people diffused in contrary societies for all these centuries — how they can live to argue theology with each other while Christians have killed each other wholesale and repeatedly over the same eons for the same disagreements.
You cannot intelligently deny that nothing in Scripture has changed that. Everything points to the Tribal Family of God.
In the penultimate, we Christians define who we are by what we believe, while it appears that the proper thinking is the reverse.
LikeLike
Maybe this is stupid, but it seems to me that Jesus didn’t have a community at all, he had a loose group of followers. It was (and is) the Holy Spirit who built the church which followed once Jesus ascended.
LikeLike
In my mind, the Church exists to worship God and the principal way it does this, both on Earth and in Heaven, is through the sacrifice of the spotless lamb of God, united with our priest on Earth and with our High Priest Jesus in Heaven.
Vatican II calls the Eucharist the source and summit of Christian life. The source because everything flows from it and is dependent on it. The summit because the Church never does anything better or more important.
It involves quite a bit more than transubstantiation. Even the distribution of Communion plays a pretty small part.
I suspect that there is more agreement here than disagreement. For instance, I think most would agree that the main purpose of the Church is to worship God. I seem to remember Piper making a similar point. But Michael was not really talking about the purpose of the Church, so much as describing some characteristics of our interactions with each other and with outsiders.
LikeLike
“Confrontative: Jesus confronted the powers at every level, using the weapons of love, truth and the Holy Spirit.”
I think Jesus’ position vis-a-vis “the powers” is more complicated than this.
“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”
“Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe . . .”
“And he did not answer him with regard to even a single charge, so the governor was quite amazed.”
In point of fact, Jesus neglected to confront the powers at almost every level almost all of the time, unless they insisted on confronting him. This likely offended the zealots who desired confrontation with the powers.
LikeLike
1. In response to my comment about Jesus choosing blue-collar types to be leaders, you wrote:
Millions of Christians do, did and always will. Probably 90% of Evangelicals worldwide. What’s the alternative? Please illuminate that one.
I can’t speak for the global Evangelical movement, but I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christian clergy in this country are, in fact, of an educated middle class background. I don’t believe this is a problem, but it is different from what Jesus did during His earthly ministry.
At the least, it means our leaders are not qualified by education or other kinds of status, but by Christ’s call.
After receiving a call, most churches expect their leaders to get some kind of education or training–usually at a college level–before they are “qualified” for ordination.
2. Sue–that little patch of Latin just means, “Arguing that something MUST be true because that’s the way it turned out”…basically, this is the argument that you say some of your RC friends make. Since no one made that argument here, however, it seemed sort of odd to bring it up.
3. Divisions within Christianity do hurt our evangelization efforts. It’s well and good to say that we agree on the essentials, but there’s not even agreement on what is and isn’t essential! I’ve talked to non-Christians who have made this observation. It’s like we all work for the GM dealership and we’re all keen on GM, but I’m selling Chevy and you’re selling Caddillac and we’re each claiming that we’ve got the best GM product. If we’re not on the same page, some folks are going to find that very off-putting.
LikeLike
“So as long as there is a priest doing mass, there are no other questions regarding the community of Jesus that need to be asked and answered?”
Is that a fair reading of my comments? It’s not what I wrote or meant. In this one thread I paid attention to the Eucharist because it’s what I personally care about. Not an exhaustive list of community activities and issues, which, sorry, I just don’t care about. I’m happy to let y’all sort that out.
However the activities of mission, witnessing etc all have as a goal union with Christ. We disagree on the form of that union not the necessity of it.
LikeLike
BTW, presbyter is Greek for priest. AnneG in NC
LikeLike
CCC Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”
No, it isn’t just the priest celebrating Mass or making available the other sacraments. Each believer is called to participate according to our vocation in Christ’s mission, in other words, I am a wife, mother, grandmother, embroiderer among other things. I am called in each of these areas to minister. I really try to do what I do as I would do it for the Lord Himself. That includes trying not to cut people off in traffic, giving way in the grocery line, helping in my community, not in big ways, but as individuals need and I am able. That is my vocation as a Christian. That is what the sacraments do for me, they empower me to do those things, and they heal me from the millions of ways I fall short and don’t live up to what God has set aside for me to do to serve Him by serving my neighbors. That, I think, is the process of sanctification and making Jesus visible in the world.
That said, no other group is better or quicker to get out of the parking lot from church than a Catholic parish leaving mass. I guess we don’t so much do it there as where we have our vocations. AnneG in NC
LikeLike
– Invested in only a few with the secrets of the kingdom.
– Said that Herod was a fox. Luke 13:32
Good list.
LikeLike
There’s no law against the word ‘Essene’ being a kind of catch-all with vague or misunderstood boundaries, either – like ‘Evangelicalism’, perhaps?
LikeLike
iMonk
Anne G. is right. Presbyteros became priest in English. In old French it would have been prestre. You wouldn’t have learned this in Greek, since it’s English etymology we’re talking about.
LikeLike
So as long as there is a priest doing mass, there are no other questions regarding the community of Jesus that need to be asked and answered?
That’s what we are seeing in the book of Acts? The extension of priests making the sacraments available?
Acts 8:4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
This movement was ordinary people evangelizing and church planting.
Sacraments may “define” the church in important ways. I agree. But it’s not all there is to the community. That’s a serious error in my view. One that is still worth resisting.
LikeLike
Sorry about revisiting the point I was trying to explain, not to argue.
LikeLike
“Really….a post on the community of Jesus isn’t a discussion of the difference between Protestant and Catholic versions of the sacraments is it?”
You wouldn’t think so , but if you’re Catholic and want to play too, it comes along. From the Catholic point of view, the Eucharist literally defines the community. Other wise I felt like I was outside looking at totally Protestant question. That’s why it drifted that way.
LikeLike
No one who talks about Zwingli ever reads him. Only what Lutherans and RCs say about him.
Really….a post on the community of Jesus isn’t a discussion of the difference between Protestant and Catholic versions of the sacraments is it?
I mean, isn’t there something quite revealing about the continual quest to establish that all my criticisms of my own tradition and all my efforts to hear Jesus really need to be laid aside so I can accept the theology of the sacraments? The community I’m looking for is the RCC as it is?
I’m sorry guys. Really. I am so happy for all of you, but I’ve been to mass 50x, and I’m not looking for the faith to believe that a miracle happens on the altar, etc.
I’m looking for the Jesus shaped community. That many people believe they have found it in Orthodoxy and the RCC (or the latest meagachurch) is no surprise to me. I’ve read the best RC apologists and what they found isn’t what I am looking for.
peace to you brothers and sisters,
ms
LikeLike
“I have a rich theology of the sacraments. I have no theology of transubstantiation.”
I think I follow that distinction well enough and I’ll let it go, unless you care to take it up elsewhere some other time. I expect Zwingli, like everyone else, is not done justice by his Wikipedia page.
LikeLike
>The word priest comes from Presbyter.
I had a couple of years of greek and 3 of Latin. Did I miss this?
Jesus never commanded the use of buildings for anything. New covenant worship doesn’t exclude or include buildings. Jesus was silent about them.
But I’m sure what we spend on them, do in them and believe about them is often a long way from the new covenant.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Memphis:
What you mean by “merely symbolic” is probably considerably less than I mean and probably quite a ways from Zwingli. I’m more Z than Calvin or Luther.
I have a rich theology of the sacraments. I have no theology of transubstantiation.
We can leave it there.
ms
LikeLike
Michael, You said Jesus didn’t have buildings but He did and he gathered in the Synagogue with, yes, a group of men.
I didn’t say your church violated anything. I was responding to your comments regarding people feeling lead to ordination as opposed to being called by God and being prepared. Is there anything wrong with that? You seem to be pretty well prepared and well read.
As for requirements, it is all there. Do I have to repeat it?
Celibacy is a Church discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. The word priest comes from Presbyter. Calling the priest Father is a custom we get from Paul saying he is father to the Galatians, etc.
AnneG in NC
LikeLike
Wait a sec. Didn’t you say once you were Zwinglian on the point? Did I imagine/misremember that? From the quick internet look up I get that Zwingli held the Eucharist was merely symbolic. Is that my misunderstanding, is the source inaccurate?
LikeLike
“There are other views of the sacraments that are not RCC and not blatantly minimalistic. ”
Fair enough. I’ve not made a study of your cite, so I’ve missed the your take. Link me back and I’ll take a look.
LikeLike
Also on point Christ emphatically repeats himself, does that even happen anywhere else? He doesn’t turn to Peter and say “that was a parable I meant x y and z” rather He asks if Peter wants to leave as well. The text implies a serious not seen elsewhere.
LikeLike
Memphis Aggie:
When you can find me saying it’s “merely symbolic” I’ll answer that question 🙂
There are other views of the sacraments that are not RCC and not blatantly minimalistic. I’ve written about that many times on here.
ms
LikeLike
BTW, I’ve never heard “transubstantiation is the Gospel.†Certainly not as full blown mature theology under that name, but rather that the blood and body terms used by Christ are explicitly literal not at all figurative, abstract or symbolic. That is Gospel, as I read it in a very concrete literal way. Whether you believe it is another question entirely, but that’s why I pick the story where the less committed bailed. If it was understood as merely symbolic why leave?
LikeLike
>Jesus had several buildings: the synagogues & the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus said the temple was coming down, replaced by him.
Synagogue is a gathering of elders, not a building.
I’d be interested to know specifially what passages of scripture in I and II Timothy and Titus my church violated when they ordained me to the Gospel ministry. And I’d like to know what passages of scripture I violated in the ordinations I’ve participated in.
We also might ask where in scripture these men are 1) called priests or Father 2) commanded to be celibate and 3) given specific educational requirements.
The Bible is extremely plain on the subject of qualifications for elders. It’s hard to mess that one up.
ms
LikeLike
Sue:
Many scholars are currently doubting the existence of the Essenes in the form we’ve popularly heard about.
Even if so, the Essenes were a radical reform movement preparing for a military messiah and practicing extreme asceticism. Hardly sounds like the guy accused of being too touch with women + drinking and eating too much at too many parties.
ms
LikeLike
Memphis:
We all rely on the Apostles too. Their testimony and authority is in scripture for us, and by way of God’s grace and fallible tradition/reason, we read it together. Our elders also interpret and help us.
Our primary difference is the pope/magisterium.
BTW, I’ve never heard “transubstantiation is the Gospel.”
ms
LikeLike
Sue Kephart, There are gobs, tons, lots and lots of writings from the very early Church by St Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome to name just 3 and they are fascinating. They dealt with the same things we are talking about as well as the threat of martyrdom while defining essential doctrines: the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the dual nature of Jesus.
They are really worth a read.
AnneG in NC
LikeLike
Some think that Jesus was a monastic, an Essene, until His active ministry at the age of 30. I tend to be of that camp. Of course we don’t know.
Yes, most of us marry , raise a family, work a job. That don’t mean we can’t learn from our monastic brothers and sisters. I do believe they have much to teach us about living a Christian life in community. We can adapt that to fit our own life situation.
LikeLike
Uh, Excuse me, Jesus had several buildings: the synagogues & the Temple in Jerusalem.
Also, could all the little pieces of Protestant/Evangelical/Reformed/Charismatic/Covenant/Baptist/Non-Denominational/Bible/Community etc Churches mentioned here maybe be because people try to lead when they feel led without being properly prepared or even called?
Very early there were local Churches who communicated with each other and answered to Rome with established leaders called Bishops and Presbyters.
Just a few random thoughts. AnneG in NC
LikeLike
Let me give you a concrete scriptural example of authority from today’s mass from Acts. The Gentile churches are worried about a possible requirement for circumcision, but the letter reassures them that, by consensus and the Authority of the Apostles, it’s not a concern, just ignore those disquieting contrarian voices. Unlawful marriage, blood and meat from idol sacrifices and strangled meat are all off limits but that’s it. Doubtless you know Acts better than I do , but clearly somebody has to be in charge and make these decisions. Acts points to the Apostles Catholics rely on Apostolic succession. You don’t have to agree with it to see why it arose.
LikeLike
“Why is the witness to non-Christians damaged if we disagree on transubstantiation? Our witness is damaged if one of us denies the Gospel and says the other doesn’t belong to Christ.”
I see what you are saying up to a point, but transubstantiation is Gospel to me. As I read the discourse on the bread of life in John, I notice that Jesus lost quite of few of His disciples to this “hard saying”. I know some Churches do allow both views to coexist (Anglican for example), but to me that’s an abdication of leadership. You speak of decisions.
Well a decision literally means cutting off the other possibility. If you decided A and I decide B then we are left with two choices: either split or live with our differences in little informal sub-Churches. The lack of a unified message, a singular coherent teaching is inherantly confusing to others (thus bad witness). Why won’t they say “you’ve accepted this difference why can’t I continue to believe in Zeus”, just to pick an absurd example.
LikeLike
Sue:
I live in an intentional Christian community. Have for 17 years.
My main issues in comparing monasteries to Christian community would be the absence of secular vocations and marriage.
Jesus wasn’t a monastic. Something of a Franciscan 🙂
LikeLike
Ben,
Sorry I don’t know Latin. I do think Jesus went to worship and kept the Jewish Holidays. He also sang. He sang the Psalms.
It actually is hard to know what the early church was like. We do know somethings from Scripture and scant early writings. But not enough to reconstruct the early church.
But do we want to do that? I know imonk will disagree but the closest thing to the early church I can find is the monastery.
How do we today reach people with the Gospel message no matter what tradition we are in. Including the people in our own pews. How do we grow Spiritually? Encourage others? I have a big problem in my tradition because we stress justification so much many think they are done at Baptism. Each tradtion has it’s huddles.
I have learn much from other traditions, very much from the RC Church. It is not my choice, either is the Baptist one. Doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate both as well as others. I had my pastor tell me one time I should be a Pentecostal. I told my pastor being a contemplative I have to balance myself out!!!
I agree with you on the wwjd movement. First you have to know what Jesus did. He got nailed to a tree. That’s what He is asking of us.
LikeLike
Why is the witness to non-Christians damaged if we disagree on transubstantiation? Our witness is damaged if one of us denies the Gospel and says the other doesn’t belong to Christ.
LikeLike
That should be “are damaged”
LikeLike
“How do poor Protestants get by? Making all these hard decisisons.”
So you decide on A and I decide on B then, if it’s about something important (sacraments for example) then we go our separate ways and unity, continuity and witness to the non-Christian is all damaged.
LikeLike
Ben:
>He chose fishermen and other blue-collar types to be leaders.
Millions of Christians do, did and always will. Probably 90% of Evangelicals worldwide. What’s the alternative? Please illuminate that one.
At the least, it means our leaders are not qualified by education or other kinds of status, but by Christ’s call.
>If so, Paul will be surprised.
Why? Was Timothy a trained rabbi? Titus?
>How do you decide which aspects of that historical community are essential and which are incidental?
By a reasonable, but not infallible process.
>Christ’s community was also highly mobile. Does this mean that we should be itinerant as well?
Same answer as above. Much of it was and is. Church planters, missionaries, others serving in communities that choose to go where the Spirit leads.
At the least, it says some can be itinerant. Why the all or nothing?
>Jesus also didn’t have a building, didn’t hold regular “services,†didn’t lead praise music, etc.
Correct. We shouldn’t act like those things are authorized by God when they’re not. Hence, new covenant worship.
How do poor Protestants get by? Making all these hard decisisons.
ms
LikeLike
Sue–I have to smile at my Protestant brothers and sisters when they mention Catholics who make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments even though no one in the thread actually made any. (See how not cool that was?)
Anyway, I like the idea of examining the Gospels and figuring out what characterized Christ’s community, but I’m not so sure that it’s the best way to build community now. How do you decide which aspects of that historical community are essential and which are incidental?
One aspect that characterized Christ’s community, for example, is that he chose fishermen and other blue-collar types to be leaders. Does this mean that we should draw leaders only from these groups? (If so, Paul will be surprised.) Christ’s community was also highly mobile. Does this mean that we should be itinerant as well? Jesus also didn’t have a building, didn’t hold regular “services,” didn’t lead praise music, etc. While we’re at it, He also put just one guy in charge of managing the money and we all know how that turned out.
Points to the problem I’ve always had with the WWJD movement. The question really is what would Jesus have ME do?
LikeLike
I think those two are a lot closer than we typical realize when our primary goal is to distinguish them.
If we took the best views of these matters from the best sources, we’d probably be within sight of one another.
LikeLike
The impass some are have regarding the Sacraments reminds me of a Renovare conference I attended some years ago. Foster was asked to explain the drawing on the front of the booklet than was given out. He said.”Well if you are high church it’s an icon. If you are low church its a logo.”
I think the same can be said of the Sacraments. An icon is something you “click on” and something happens. A logo is a symbol of something. I’ll go with the icon.
LikeLike
Missisonal: Actively pursuing the fulfillment of the Great Commission by ministry ultimately aimed at cross-cultural church planting.
Intentional: Action derived from an agreed upon purpose.
LikeLike
imonk – “>…the lost sheep of Israel..
Which obviously included Romans, Greeks, Syro-Phonecians, Ethiopians, etc.”
You know what I think about that one, im … http://www.surfnetter.com/blog/?p=42
There actually were a very important group of “Lost Sheep of Israel” that almost everyone ignores –but I don’t think Jesus was ignorant of them. We count them dead and buried and literally walk over their graves to get to the Promised Land without giving them a thought — when, in fact, they might be us. Genetics are starting to point to that likelihood. Jon Entine, former NBC News producer, relates that in his book — http://www.abrahamschildren.net/
It is a very important issue to settle when talking about the Kingdom Community Jesus is establishing on the earth.
LikeLike
iMonk
Mainline Lutheran here. Please define 2 terms for those of us not in on the jargon: missional, intentional. Thanks much.
LikeLike
Also I think good Christian communities are always temporary, like a flower that blooms for a season.
Even the best Christian communities, like those founded by the apostles weren’t permanent. I’m sure the churches at places like Jerusalem or Phillipi etc. were really great for the first few years and then they began to get either self-absorbed, abusive, complacent, or whatever.
This is where it can become discuraging – when you find a good community, but then it loses its magic, like a flower dying, and then you have to find or start another. its at this point that some people give up looking.
LikeLike
BW:
I think it’s an impasse that can be navigated.
The sacraments have a prominent place in maintaining community. In my tradition, they serve multiple aspects of the life of the community:
-They proclaim the Gospel
-They enact God’s activity in history
-The re-involve us in the story of the entire Bible, especially the story of Jesus.
My issue is with those who make sacarmentalism the entire definition of the church. This produces a kind of individualism that is often practically monastic in effects. I believe the sacraments, the Gospel and the life of the community are mutually energized in the life of the Spirit.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Thought-provoking post and thoughtful comments. Paradise! Ad hoc community right here.
LikeLike
Imonk,
I understand the point you are trying to make, though yes, my Lutheran view of the sacraments puts us at an impasse
LikeLike
BW:
There is a valid point to be made about baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but since I don’t believe the view of baptism or the LS that most sacramentalists have, I’m reluctant to allow them to define community as “anywhere the sacraments are validly offered.” I will join Reformation Christians in saying “sacraments, Gospel, discipline” have to be seen together.
Our differing view of the sacraments makes me very reluctant to create the impression I define community in a way I consider considerably truncated when compared to the Gospels.
peace
ms
LikeLike
cermak_rd:
Galilee was the most Gentile dominated area of Israel. The Northern Kingdom in general was historically an ethical collection of Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Phonecians, etc.
Jesus spent years in Galilee, and visited Jerusalem as required to worship at the temple.
Jesus interacted with many non-Jews in the Gospels. And what information do you have that Jesus’ audiences in Galilee were purely Jewish. They certainly were not.
ms
LikeLike
“… and on this rock I will build my church….” Matt. 16:18b
Somehow, Holy Spirit through Christians builds community without the confines of institution. But are we willing to accept that model. I often wonder why the NT never outrights condemns slavery but even teaches slaves and slaveowners how to act. Maybe there were “bigger fish to fry” in community building and not getting caught up in something less than making disciples.
LikeLike
“God Himself is an organization of persons working together to accomplish our redemption” Matt?
This to me is the tail wagging the dog.
The Trinity is not a collection of persons. God does not need anything.He does not need to do anything. He is totally self-sufficient and does not need you and me. It is not about us. It is about Him. We are so ego based we can’t stop thinking everything God does is because of us.Poor Jesus had to come down and die on the cross because I was bad!! We are not the focus of the universe. God is.
Also I do understand Jesus prepared the twelve to spread the Gospel to the world. They along with others did just that. However, Jesus did not tell them to go to Roman and create a hierarchial religious institution. That happened,yes. Depending on your tradition the why and how are debatable.
LikeLike
I would argue that Jesus wasn’t that cross-cultural. Sure he healed the Canaanite woman, after making her defend herself–unlike most of the other people he healed. But none of the Gospels have him addressing large gatherings of non-Jews. And he set up his ministry in the Jewish epicenter of the time.
It seems to me that any talk of things in the Acts are largely after the time of the historical Jesus, so I would distinguish that work from that of Jesus.
I would argue that it was Paul who brought the cross-cultural aspect into Christianity.
LikeLike
There’s a problem with how we’re using “political” here that was the reason that I brought up Yoder.
Politics as used is probably talking about interactions with the power structures of the time, both the Religious Jewish powers and the Secular Roman powers.
But technically, the RC became it’s own political power block on par with either of those, and eventually above them.
By definition though, politics is any system used by a group of people to organize how they’re going to do something.
So feeding 5k men plus women and children would be considered innately political, especially using the 12 disciples to run handouts.
It’s not that Jesus wasn’t political. He just didn’t engage with the power structures of the day, because his methodology was antithetical to those bodies of power which were running according to the Prince of this World.
LikeLike
Leaving aside all the “where’s the True Church” stuff, where does one look for useful reflections on what it means to live in community?
Do the 20th and 21st centuries seem likely to know more about this than earlier times or are the experiences of, say, Benedictines, Dominicans, Salesians, or Zinzendorf Moravians apt be more enlightening?
LikeLike
“That’s why this discussion of “which denomination is the REAL one†is so inane. Look at ALL churches today and tell me where is the existential evidence of their connection to Jesus? Do you really think what I need is the wonderful comfort that I finally found the right seat? Got my name on the right list?”
(i-monk)
“To make a gross simplification in order to highlight what is a much messier difference, when you compare the two, most Protestant churches tend to bend towards the Kingdom as a community or culture, the RCC as an institution or society.”
Myrrdin
I think this is where non-sacramental people don’t understand. The church (=the congregation) administers the sacraments (institution). The sacraments assure us of forgiveness of sins, as sinners we all are, still. We are in Christ (connected to Jesus). We take them together. We are one. We care for each other. (community)
LikeLike
Re Jesus & the Syro-Phoenician (Canaanite?) woman.
A woman from a traditionally despised (perhaps for good reason, if she was a Canaanite) people comes asking Jesus for a miracle.
Jesus tells her He was only sent to “the lost sheep of Israel” & it’s not right to give the children’s bread to the dogs.
She responds (perhaps shooting right back?) that even the puppies get the table scraps.
Jesus is delighted & does as she asks.
What was Jesus doing? He was challenging this woman. We don’t know what religion she followed. We don’t know how she behaved. We don’t know if perhaps she was involved in some sort of paganism that opened her daughter to the demonic.
We do know that she had a need and that she saw Jesus as having the answer.
And He challenged her- “Are you a Canaanite dog? A child of the demon-worshipping, shrine-harlot, child-sacrificing historic enemies of Israel?
“Or are you a true Israelite in spirit- one who wrestles with God & prevails?”
And like Father Israel, she grabbed hold & wouldn’t let go until Jesus recognized her as a “Israelite” & blessed her.
LikeLike
Imonk,
What about also adding “Sacramental,” as Christ commanded the community of believers to adminster the sacraments?
LikeLike
Matt: “A kingdom is an institution, by its very nature.”
On the one hand, yes, on the other hand, no. And I think it is in these two hands that you find one of the great divides that makes it so hard for Protestants and Catholics to understand each other culturally.
To make a gross simplification in order to highlight what is a much messier difference, when you compare the two, most Protestant churches tend to bend towards the Kingdom as a community or culture, the RCC as an institution or society.
I think both have their strengths and weaknesses and I sure wish we could get together on this and create a vision for the Kingdom that was all of these things without priority.
Come Lord Jesus
LikeLike
Great post iMonk. To those asking about institutional and hierarchy, remember what Jesus taught these leaders when he washed their feet. Leadership among his followers does not imply hierarchy, it implies the reverse: servanthood. The last will be first and the first will be last.
With “non-political” I take you to be saying something similar to Yoder in “Politics of Jesus” and if so, I heartily agree. Jesus had many political choices in his day and he rejected them all. He was critical of all political movements in a way that you can only be so long as you remain free from them.
And to bob3 – that was about the worst instance of taking half of a verse out of context that I have ever seen. I guess you would also say that Jesus went around calling Gentiles “dogs.” Read the rest of that story and you see quite easily that Jesus did heal the woman’s daughter and was most likely making a point about the disciples’ prejudice. There really is no place for the kind of misuse of Scripture you put on display there.
Peace,
mike
LikeLike
I think it’s fascinating that in a discussion like this, we’re encouraged to go down the road of “what’s the franchise Jesus opened?” road.
I’ve listed aspects of community that challenge me in regard to any expression of church I’ve ever seen. Some expressions of church, however, feel that pedigree is what we really need.
I don’t need pedigree. I need something that is recognizably like Jesus in the way it lives as community. If your claim is that non-RCs can’t be the community of Jesus in the way described because they don’t have the pedigree, then some of us would ask if the presence of these characteristics- like being missional- matter at all? Or is pedigree everything?
That’s why this discussion of “which denomination is the REAL one” is so inane. Look at ALL churches today and tell me where is the existential evidence of their connection to Jesus? Do you really think what I need is the wonderful comfort that I finally found the right seat? Got my name on the right list?
LikeLike
I think that C.S. Lewis has a very good answer to politics and the church in one of his essays in “God in the Dock” I am sure that you are all familiar with it, but he lays out some really good ways that the Church has been harmed by being too closely associated with politics or political parties. (at least in the sense of identifying the church with one party or another)
I also find it interesting that the Romans were somewhat oppressive, at least according to our definitions today, and Jesus never advocated rebellion against the empire.
I loved the list, Monk.
Once again, I know that the anabaptists have their problems, but we also have our strengths. You list sounds very much like what I was taught growing up in a Mennonite Church in the Mid-Atlantic region.
I think you were wise in leaving it simply “non political” and not commenting on that. There are so many ways to go with that one and so many of us hold our political beliefs too close to our hearts.
I think you, once again, demonstrated your discernment.
BTW: loved your marriage proverbs. Showed my wife, and she loved them too.
Congrats to Clay and his new wife.
LikeLike
Miguel,
Certainly, the Kingdom transcends the institutions, but what is the ultimate Kingdom but the archetype of our smaller institutions?
I don’t know quite how to define institution if it’s not a group of people who organize themselves to accomplish a specific goal.
If that’s what an institution is, how else can we describe the divine life of the Trinity?
God Himself is an organization of persons working together to accomplish our redemption. Insofar as the Church is what it’s supposed to be, it is exactly that. A mirror of the Triune institution.
If we’re using the word “institution” like Bryan described, with all the baggage we attach to institutions like the DMV, we’re just equivocating.
LikeLike
A key question is, How much of this actually goes back to the historical Jesus, and how much was projected onto him by the early church (or rather, the ancestors of surviving Christian groups–there being others which have disappeared). Conservative Protestants place great confidence in the reliability of the canonical New Testament, as well as their ability to interpret it correctly. I have my doubts about both.
LikeLike
oh man this was a good post. good comments too.
dm
LikeLike
sorry i meant matt not bryan
LikeLike
Brian, your comments provoked some thought with me. Could it be that institutions started in the book of Acts were merely means to an end and not the end in itself? It seems that the institution to help the poor was simply serving the kingdom’s interest, and while the kingdom may be somewhat institutional in nature, the institution to feed the poor is not one in the same, but an extension of the kingdom.
But dido your sentiments on anti-liturgical arguments. Everybody has a liturgy. But some are actually thought out. 😛
LikeLike
Regarding politics:
“Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.”
Regarding “Did Jesus know/intend to found a church?”
Sue and Bryan, I’m in the middle on this one. Sue – He chose the Twelve, and given that they are always spoken of this way (as ‘the Twelve’) distinct from the other disciples, that has to mean something, yes? Also, the sending out of the disciples to preach with what sounds like mission instructions; not really a “See how things go and what feels right, guys” type of activity. So there was structure and organisation.
Bryan, the nucleus of the Church was there. But I think where we can be faulted is when we start going on as if the Holy Ghost descended at Pentecost and handed over sewing patterns for chasubles, etc. There was development and change of how matters were organised.
LikeLike
I always have to smile at my RC brothers and sisters when they insist that Jesus intended a church (the RC one) because that’s what happened. But He didn’t intend a reformation although that happened.
I like liturgy not because it is an order of service but because it is Christ centered and uses Scripture as its base. I like praise music but find it very me focused not God focused. And despite what a popular praise song states, David did not build the temple. Somebody doesn’t know their Bible history!!!
LikeLike
What about “non-defensive”. Because of the daily need of each one for the forgiveness of sins we live life in a non-defensive way horizontally and vertically. (Kolb)
LikeLike
iMonk,
As a fellow Catholic, I would echo Bryan’s sentiments.
What do we see in the book of Acts but a whole book of institution building?
The widows aren’t being taken care of, let’s set up an office for that.
I mean, a few chapters into the book, you’ve got the Respect Widows Office of Jerusalem set up and serving the poor.
More to the point, to argue that Jesus didn’t come to set up an institution but a kingdom is akin to arguing that I don’t intend to set up a taco stand but an ice cream stand.
A kingdom is an institution, by its very nature.
It strikes me a bit like people’s arguments against liturgical worship when they, of course, have an order of service to their worship every week that is substantially the same, week in and week out.
That said, I’m largely in favor of most of your points.
LikeLike
This list is excellent. The challenge for me is how to contribute to the forming my own local church community after this.
To often we fall into the sin of imitation of forms, seeing what is “successful” at other churches and them mimicking it, often losing the original point. I suppose many of forms that have grown even to seem empty can be used for the purposes in this list, given the right focus.
Community has lamentably become so much of a buzzword among churches, and I find that most people using it have nothing reminiscent of this sort of community.
I feel true Jesus-shaped community may be the needed solution to the evils of radical American individualism, and if it could be truly cultivated, people would be breaking down the doors to become a part of it.
LikeLike
Many years ago. I’m familiar with the anabaptist approach.
LikeLike
Monk, have you read “The Politics of Jesus” by Yoder?
LikeLike
This list makes me think about the characteristics I would use if making the list. I’m not sure what happens with some of these if in a different situation. Was Jesus counter cultural to that particular culture or to most or all cultures?
So I would be careful with characteristics that are reactive ones. I’m also not sure how far we can push the “non” characteristics like non-institutional and non-institutional. Are these arguments from silence?
Just a few thoughts, but I like that you have given us something to chew on.
LikeLike
>…the lost sheep of Israel..
Which obviously included Romans, Greeks, Syro-Phonecians, Ethiopians, etc.
LikeLike
Jesus said that neither his kingdom nor his methods were like the political states or factions of his time. It was not a government, but a universal Kingdom that will eschatologically replace the Kingdoms of this world with the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.
LikeLike
Inclusive: Jesus was creating community that included all of the excluded at every level.
“woman,I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel….” Matt. 15:24
LikeLike
I left evangelicalism 40 years ago in search of such a community. I’ve been a Unitarian Universalist just about ever since, of course, the correspondence is nowhere near 100%. If you keep this up, you are going to put the UU’s out of business.
LikeLike
Christ clearly chose twelve men to whom he gave special duties and authority. He also sets up rules for them (e.g., travel in pairs, eat what’s set before you, etc.).
We’ve got a basic hierarchy here and a set of “operating procedures.” Sure sounds like an institution to me.
I guess I’m not exactly clear on what an “institution” is if Christ’s community doesn’t qualify. One definition I’ve found states that an institution is “an organization founded and united for a specific purpose.” Check.
LikeLike
Michael,
Could you give some kind of definition to your term “non-institutional” or even “institutional”? Are you claiming that Jesus did not ordain leaders of His Church, and authorize them to govern His Church, such that there was no divinely-appointed hierarchy? I suspect that we agree on this point. But I worry that the term ‘institutional’ (like the term ‘bureaucracy’) has a lot of negative baggage and connotations, and that this is what you are saying Jesus didn’t attempt to establish. Did Jesus not instruct His Apostles concerning how to preserve the government of the Church by ordaining worthy men to succeed them? If the Church was not an institution with Apostles, bishops, elders and deacons, then how was it not equivalent to the hippie stereotype of Jesus People USA? Thanks.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“Confrontative: Jesus confronted the powers at every level, using the weapons of love, truth and the Holy Spirit.”
This is the big thing I think. I don’t think confrontation is considered acceptable in our culture. I don’t think Jesus would fit in at all in America.
I don’t run into Christian community, I don’t think it is something anyone happens to run into, during the course of a normal day. I get up, get in my car, commute, eat, watch tv, attend to errands, talk on the phone, go online, go to bed.
The weather happens to me; scuffles, accidents and confrontations happen to me; sickness happens to me; etc.
Christianity doesn’t happen to me (one exception is the loud street preachers that preach on one of the intersections where I live every week in the evening).
LikeLike
Would you mind clarifying/elaborating the statement that Jesus’ community was non-political? How do you interpret the various political remarks made against the factions of the day? (I tend to think of Jesus’ community as revolutionary rather than non-political).
LikeLike
You forgot to mention Hebrew — if you’re not a child of Abraham, you were grafted in.
LikeLike
Thanks again. You and I are in agreement on this. BUT, Jesus didn’t ‘have’ a church. Unless you want to consider His church as Judaism. And He certainly had some big issues with those leaders.
Today Christianity is dished up by churches. So enter egos, my way, my understanding as well as power bases and so on. It is the history of institutionalize religion. What’s a Christian to do?
I accept that my church isn’t perfect. I think it tries to carry out your ideals but often fails. We are just people after all.
I think what it means to follow Jesus is to accept what my circumstances as they are and submit my will to His. To love God with my whole soul , mind and strenght and love my neighbor as myself. I can’t do this. I need a supernatural power to help and guide me. Also a community to walk with me. He provides that community when I am ready. When the student is ready the teacher comes. Have faith!
LikeLike
I think this could be expanded nicely into a chapter or two in your upcoming book!
LikeLike