This is worth reading:

http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/index.php/article/articleview/1335/1/124/

[quote author="Simon Flinders"] I think the Bible teaches this: that Church is a gift more than a strategy. What do others think?

I think you’re spot on, Simon, and I’m glad that Southern Cross gave you the space to say so.

Matt

yeah.  but.

The church has a structural problem, which is that most of our evangelism consists of inviting people to church.  We run community events in the hall so people will be more inclined to go to church when asked.  We make marriage prep and baptism participants, sit in church before we stamp their cards.  This is repeated over and over again in an effort to get non-christians to enter thebuilding.  It’s like Luke’s South Park example of the gnome’s strategy

Phase 1: Underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profits.

Except that phase 1 is get people into church and phase 3 is they become christians. 

If “church is for christians” is true we need to have something other than church for non christians, which can take the weight of evangelism. 

It also takes the strain off things like communion, which is a horrible thing to do to a visiting non christian.  It’s alienating and weird and without context is very off putting.  If church is about evangelism, then communion is a tricky thing to work into the program (which is why “evangelistic services” usually don’t happen on the last sunday of the month :)

So I agree with the thrust of the article, but it’s talking about reforming hundreds of years of practise.  I think many churches are on board with this, but there’s still hundreds of churches with the main sunday meeting as it’s prime evangelistic tool.  Those churches must continue to run a dual purpose.

G’day Rowen,

[quote author="Rowen"]It also takes the strain off things like communion, which is a horrible thing to do to a visiting non christian. It’s alienating and weird and without context is very off putting. If church is about evangelism, then communion is a tricky thing to work into the program

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Cor 11:26

Come again, mate, why is communion a tricky thing to work into an evangelistic program? Alienating and weird? Paul thinks it is a proclamation of the gospel (i.e. evangelistic). HC is an acted metaphor of the focus of our unity with one another and dependence upon Christ. Also, why would it be “without context” (assuming the church uses proper liturgy to give it context as they should)? (Mate, you should know from previous threads on HC that I’m touchy on this one!! Are you deliberately stirring me? ;-)

I don’t think we need to divorce evangelism from Sunday Services - as it shows them what we are inviting them to join - the people of God. But I think Simon is providing a valuable corrective to those who want to take over “church” with the evangelistic task. Church is firstly a forum for the discipling and maturing of Christians - and our open and invitational nature should not overtake us to the point where the things that define us (i.e. word, community and sacrament) are sidelined to accomodate the newcomer.
Cheers
Matt

No, I wasn’t deliberately stirring, I think I was more describing the feel in some churches toward communion in the context of a evangelistic event.  As such, removing the evangelism from church and structuring something elsewhere would give said church the freedom to have communion as christians.

If all Simon is doing is “providing a corrective” then, with respect, what’s the point?  If you de-focus evangelism from the sunday service (by which I mean stop encouraging people to invite friends to chruch) you have to structure an alternative to that evangelism that is meaningful and engages with society while clearly proclaiming the gospel.  Otherwise all you are doing is fiddling with the compromise between serving christians and serving outsiders.

Unless I have completely missed the point, and in fact the article is just saying that we have to move the compromise more toward christians.. without any discussion on what that does for outsiders.

I’m really not sure what this “corrective” is seeking to correct.

What is church? I think the bible indicates a major part of it is the gathering of God’s people to hear his word.

Can it be outward looking? Of course it can.

I think the problem lies in Seeker Services and the like - those that are so designed almost exclusively for outsiders, which can have the effect of *not* being about the gathering of God’s people.

The answer is to have the gospel preached, to have “Christ Crucified” preached every week. (& I don’t mean ever week is TWTL and a call to pray the prayer)

[quote author="Adam"]What is church? I think the bible indicates a major part of it is the gathering of God’s people to hear his word.

That is a major part of it, but that alone would not make up a ‘church’. Perhaps a simple definition of the early church’s understanding of “church” can be found in Acts 2, right after Pentecost:

[quote author="Acts 2:42"]"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Although I would hesitate to be so proof-text-dependent, I think this neatly summarizes the broader indications of the NT understanding of church. So four key things make up “church”:

1. Apostolic teaching (now heard through the scriptures)
2. Fellowship among Christians
3. Bread-Breaking (early church shorthand for Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lord’s Supper or whatever you like to call it)
4. Prayer

I take it that participation in those four activities is what defines a church. A “church” community that discounts one or other of those activities calls into question its continuity with the apostolic church. In that I would include churches where apostolic teaching has been discarded, where attendees do so anonymously and without forming a community with other attendees, where HC is not celebrated and churches where prayer does not feature.

I don’t think Simon’s ‘corrective’ is about tweaking balances, although the visible result in any one church might look that way. It is about ensuring our underpinning philosophy of church (or ecclesiology) is sound - and that will influence our decisions and the logic used in making many decisions. Just as it is important to get our theology of grace and works correct because that will play out in a myriad of ways big and small, so it is important to get our eccesiology correct because that too will spawn all sorts of different activities and decisions.

For instance, imagine someone suggests that in order to make our church more accessible to outsiders we should stop teaching scripture systematically and just preach a gospel outline each week. An eccesiology that sees church as primarily set up for evangelism will have no foundation for objection. But that would result in a bunch of adults who haven’t yet been weaned off the breast, spiritually speaking.

Usually churches with an evangelism-based ecclesiology are constantly in a cultural cringe and listening carefully to statements like: “That would make outsiders uncomfortable”, as though the ‘outsider’ was some generic being that will (as it happens) like my kind of music and have firm opinions (again remarkably like mine) on how the sacraments ought to be administered, if at all. That cringe is the kind of thing that I take it Simon would encourage us to avoid, by ensuring we have our underpinning understanding of church correct.

Cheers
Matt

This is a good discussion to be had.  I too saw Simon’s article and appreciated and agreed with what he had to say.  (I knew you’d like it, Matthew.  I could also see from a mile away you getting that hobby horse of yours ready for a ride as soon as Rowen made his comments about communion!!  Rowen, I’ve been there before - its an unruly beast that horse of Matt’s!).

I think the NT does contemplate that a church gathering has some role to play in communicating the gospel to unbelievers and hence Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 14 that church be conducted in an understandable tounge lest any unbelievers that might come in think we are out of our mind.  However, while Paul acknowledges that unbelievers might be present, I’m not sure that he is suggesting that they necessarily will be present, and in any event I think there is still an implicit assumption in what Paul says that church is first and foremost a gathering of believers.

I thought through some of these ideas last year after our church’s Christmas carols service.  While it was an event largely aimed at attracting outsiders, after it was over and we were assessing whether or not the evening had been a success, it occurred to me that, even if no outsiders had come along (by the way, they did!), why is there anything wrong with a group of Christians getting together and joyfully celebrating the birth of our Lord?  Isn’t that a worthwhile thing to do as an end in itself, not just as a means to an end? 

Sometimes we can have guilt trips about all this and about how few unbelievers we might get along to church, but the fact that any of us are even there to start with and that God has gathered for himself a people to praise him is a wonderful thing worth celebrating in itself!

The Purpose of Church

A Church consists not only the “big” public meeting on Sunday, but Church also consists of “small” Church gatherings in people’s homes during the week. Both are Church meetings, we don’t need an official building with all the trappings in order to meet as a “gathering of God’s people to hear His word”.

I think that evangelism is an unseperable part of the goings on at Church.
When we expose ourselves and non-believers to God’s word, we are in danger of being converted or built up in the faith. The problem lies in churches where God’s word has taken a back-seat, I suppose.

It a duty, as Christians, to meet together often, and also to preach the word to all people. It is hoped that the gospel message given, is not a confusing one, but clear and full of ‘salt’.

I can relate in part to the link especially:

I don’t want us to insist that church members be labourers without also being joyful recipients of God’s rich blessings. It seems to me that they’re the kind of areas where a foggy understanding of church will have an impact. I don’t want our churches to confuse kingdom priorities with a reason for being.

Some church members may worry unduly about the results of evangelistic outreach. Are we getting results? There are not great numbers responding immediately to our efforts, etc. Worry, worry. Read Mark 4: 26-29 for inspiration in this area.
We should instead rely on God to do the job of converting. All we can do is plant the seed; we or others may water the message over time, but it is God who gathers for His kingdom ultimately. If we have told the gospel in love to others, we should rest assured that our job is done. God will harvest those He has chosen, anyway.

If we place that trust in God, and not ourselves, we may then enjoy the fruits of faith, in our Church gatherings.

I am worried, though, about churches that only concentrate on the converted and neglect evangelism . Evangelism automatically takes place if God’s word is preached in those meetings, and it also occurs if done privately outside of those meetings.

Ken

[quote author="Ken"]A Church consists not only the “big” public meeting on Sunday, but Church also consists of “small” Church gatherings in people’s homes during the week. Both are Church meetings, we don’t need an official building with all the trappings in order to meet as a “gathering of God’s people to hear His word”.

“Small church” gatherings in homes are only church in so far as they are cells of an actual church that is defined by common participation in all four things listed in my post above (unless they do all four in the house church context). If a bible study is distinctly separate from any church community that includes those four things, then I would contend that it is not, as such, a “church”. It may be a gathering of Christians doing a Christian thing, but it does not constitute a “church” until the four legs are in place.

[quote author="Ken Austin"]I think that evangelism is an unseperable part of the goings on at Church.
When we expose ourselves and non-believers to God’s word, we are in danger of being converted or built up in the faith. The problem lies in churches where God’s word has taken a back-seat, I suppose.

I certainly agree that evangelism will happen when people enter our churches because they will be exposed to God through our proclamation and replication of Christ. In time, this exposure to holiness should either repel people or overtake them. Of course, where we fail to either proclaim or replicate Christ, neither event may take place, and they may hang out with us comfortably unconverted for the long term.

I do want to emphasise that the church is a readily inclusive community. That is a natural outworking of a community driven by love. But fundamentally the community is the product of God’s work already done, his kingdom in this world. And so the nature of our inclusiveness can only be into that which defines us, not in a way that compromises or sidelines that which defines us - for which again I would point to Word, Fellowship, Holy Communion, and Prayer.

[quote author="Andrew"]Sometimes we can have guilt trips about all this and about how few unbelievers we might get along to church, but the fact that any of us are even there to start with and that God has gathered for himself a people to praise him is a wonderful thing worth celebrating in itself!

Exactly!

Cheers
Matt

Perhaps we need to expand our idea of the church’s face to the non-church.

Eph. 3:9-10 (ESV)
[God sent his preacher] to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

It seems the church as church declares God’s plans to all authorities. Do you think it is legitimate to consider that this will be the same pattern on earth?

If so - & I think it might be - I think we can go further than saying church ‘has a role to play’ for outsiders. I’d say it is aimed at outsiders, for God’s glory. But it is always determined by what church essentially is (as I think you are arguing Matthew), rather than by what we decide outsiders want.

[quote author="Chris"]It seems the church as church declares God’s plans to all authorities. Do you think it is legitimate to consider that this will be the same pattern on earth?

Well, if the same pattern applies I think it would drive us into passivity (not, I’m sure, where you were going!). Surely the sense in which the church shows the entire cosmos what God is doing is just by being. There is no activity involved other than being (I haven’t been ringing around the cosmic powers recently to tell them about Jesus).

I do think the evangelistic task (on earth) is the inherited responsibility of the church as a whole, and that in a more pro-active sense than just by being.

I don’t like the phrase ‘aimed at outsiders’ lest we give the impression that God’s interest in forming the church is primarily for the sake of those excluded from it. Ephesians shows us that the church is the expanding nucleus of the consumation of Christ’s Lordship, the focus of God’s attention in the universe. But I certainly agree that the church is created for the glory of God, and you understand the main point I am making correctly in this:

[quote author="Chris"]But it is always determined by what church essentially is (as I think you are arguing Matthew), rather than by what we decide outsiders want.

We must know who we are as a celebrated end in ourselves, in order to ensure we invite people into the genuine church. Can you imagine the Lions Club, because it wants more members, deciding to set aside the need to do those things that might make it difficult for people to join - like acts of service? Of course not - the Lions club is defined by community service. Likewise we need to know what defines us, so that they are not compromised by our efforts to embrace the outsider.

Cheers
Matt

Thanks Matt

I see what you mean about the risk of being passive.

Well, if the same pattern applies I think it would drive us into passivity (not, I’m sure, where you were going!). Surely the sense in which the church shows the entire cosmos what God is doing is just by being. There is no activity involved other than being (I haven’t been ringing around the cosmic powers recently to tell them about Jesus).

I do think the evangelistic task (on earth) is the inherited responsibility of the church as a whole, and that in a more pro-active sense than just by being.

Your first paragraph in this quote sparked off a new thought for me. Perhaps there are two ways the church shows the cosmos what God is doing. First (as you note) simply by being church. Secondly - my new thought - by rescuing people from the false & oppressive rule of the cosmic powers. Thoughts?

BTW, an explanation of why I said ‘aimed at outsiders.’ It’s a bit vague, but I have in mind the 2 commandments. I have wondered if these can guide what church is to aim for: love God, love our neighbour. (That’s why I said ‘aimed at outsiders, for God’s glory.’)

Greetings Matthew and all!
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]Perhaps a simple definition of the early church’s understanding of “church” can be found in Acts 2, right after Pentecost:[quote author="Acts 2:42"]"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Although I would hesitate to be so proof-text-dependent, I think this neatly summarizes the broader indications of the NT understanding of church. So four key things make up “church”:

1. Apostolic teaching (now heard through the scriptures)
2. Fellowship among Christians
3. Bread-Breaking (early church shorthand for Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lord’s Supper or whatever you like to call it)
4. Prayer

I take it that participation in those four activities is what defines a church…

and a little later,
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]"Small church” gatherings in homes are only church in so far as they are cells of an actual church that is defined by common participation in all four things listed in my post above (unless they do all four in the house church context).

This latter statement is only true if the former is a precise definition of church. Frequently the only thing missing from the list would be (3), the “breaking of bread.” I agree it is possibly a reference to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, although it may not be (the expression η κλασις του αρτου or similar is used frequently in the context of all sorts of meals, cf. Matt 14:19; Luke 24:30; Jer 16:7). In fact, the use in verse 46 could even count against the sacramental reading of the expression.

Does this mean that when we gather but do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper that we have not been to church?

My other concern is that your isolation of the four criteria appears somewhat arbitrary. Read on in Acts 2:42-45
[quote author="Acts 2:42-45"]They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. All who believed were together and held everything in common, and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need.

Why not extend the requirements as stated in this passage if it really is to be understood as the early church’s definition of “church”:
[list=1][*]Apostolic teaching,
[*]Fellowship,
[*]Breaking bread,
[*]Prayer,
[*]Fear/Reverential awe,
[*]Sharing everything in common,
[*]Selling possessions and distributing the proceeds.[/list:o]
I am not convinced that this passage in Acts should be understood as a precise definition of “church.” Perhaps it is sufficient to define “church” as a gathering of the people of God for the purpose of worship…

With you all the way Matthew. With the addendum of the last bit of Enkidu’s post:

Why do we gather at all? To worship God, and to express love for him and for our fellow travellers in the world as a response to his love for us.

All those four things Matthew said I would consider as subsiduary hallmarks of worship. Personally I’d prefer all four were present in every gathering, but I accept that interpretation and application would differ.

Why do people want to de-emphasise the sacraments? There are two important symbollic things Christ himself commanded us to do “whenever we are gathered together”: to “do this in memory of me” and to “go into all the world and baptise...” The nucleus of Christian community resides in being one Body in Christ, sharing all in the same bread. An alienating experience? Most people I know who have walked into a service without prior knowledge experience a sense of awe and profound “spiritual presence” rather than a feeling of “let me out of here!”.

Hi guys,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Firstly I want to clarify my position in view of Enkidu’s question:

[quote author="Enkidu"]Does this mean that when we gather but do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper that we have not been to church?

Not at all, that’s why I could affirm what I did about “small church” gatherings (where I presume communion rarely takes place if ever). I am not speaking in terms of whether one has been to church, but whether a particular community is a church. So I would define a church as a Christian Community that shares those four things described. Whether they do them all every time they meet is irrelevant. Whether the community shares in all those things at all is very relevant.

[quote author="Enkidu"]I agree it is possibly a reference to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, although it may not be (the expression η κλασις του αρτου or similar is used frequently in the context of all sorts of meals, cf. Matt 14:19; Luke 24:30; Jer 16:7). In fact, the use in verse 46 could even count against the sacramental reading of the expression.

I don’t think the arguments against this being a reference to the Lord’s Supper carry sufficient weight to be problematic - I am pretty sure that is what Luke intended. It would just be too odd for Luke to say - amidst major things like “apostolic teaching” and “prayer” - “and they devoted themselves to eating”, if that “eating” had no special significance ascribed. Also I think Luke 24:30, where the risen Christ is only recognised by the disciples on the act of bread-breaking, is supposed to cast our minds back to Luke 22:19. Acts 2:42, in turn, reminds us of those passages again.

Your other proposal is interesting:
[quote author="Enkidu"]Why not extend the requirements as stated in this passage if it really is to be understood as the early church’s definition of “church”:

More than happy to consider other proposals for what should be included in the list of what defines a “church”, though I understand you were only pushing the envelope in the hope of bringing it back further. A few points in response to this:

Firstly, I did not propose that the verse is intended to be a definition of “church” (by Luke) so much as that it provides a convenient synthesis in one place of what I think is affirmed across the NT as the essential characteristics of a “church”. Much more space and time would be required to demonstrate why I believe that to be the case, so if there are specific doubts about any of those four things being essential to a genuine “church”, please raise them and I will seek to address them.

Secondly, in the text in Acts 2 itself I think there is a distinction between verse 42 - the four things I referred to, to which the Pentecost converts were “devoting themselves” - and the other spontaneous things that also occured surrounding that first “church” such as awe, miracles (which I assume you left off your list because they were distinctly related to the apostles), and property sharing.

Thirdly, regarding the property sharing, as I understand the sweep of the NT believers had the option of selling possessions and distributing the proceeds, and many chose to do so, but it was not a requirement that they do so to belong to the church. Certainly this has not been inherited as a strict requirement by the later church either (a tradition which as usual I see as strongly indicative though not finally authoritative), where the four in v42 clearly have.

[quote author="Enkidu"]Perhaps it is sufficient to define “church” as a gathering of the people of God for the purpose of worship…

I’m afraid I don’t think so. I think a “church” is a specific Christian community, not a random gathering that worships God. In order for that community to claim continuity and unity with the church catholic and apostolic, I still think that apostolic teaching, fellowship, HC and prayer must feature among them - not necessarily all every time, granted, but all should be the principal features of that community, whatever else recognisably “Christian” may be found among them.

Finally, a quick response to Chris:

[quote author="Chris Little"]Your first paragraph in this quote sparked off a new thought for me. Perhaps there are two ways the church shows the cosmos what God is doing. First (as you note) simply by being church. Secondly - my new thought - by rescuing people from the false & oppressive rule of the cosmic powers. Thoughts?

Well...kind of. I think you have started to depart from the spirit of the epistle, which would ascribe any rescuing going on to God. If we import our systematic theology we know that God delights to do that rescuing through the humble efforts of Christian people to proclaim the gospel...but I wouldn’t be going to the grand theocentric visions of Ephesians to establish the impetus for evangelism, personally. Paul spends three chapters working out the implications of those visions (4-6) and only works it out in terms of personal holiness in conduct and relationships, and preparedness to defend oneself against the cosmic powers. The only mention of evangelism in this epistle is Paul’s request for prayer that he may be equipped to declare the gospel fearlessly. In Ephesians, Paul doesn’t say: “Because you are the testimony of God to the universe, get out there and tell people about Christ”; he says “Because you are the testimony of God to the universe, make sure you act like God-in-Christ! (5:1-2)

Can you see where I’m coming from? I don’t disagree strongly with the statement, but it doesn’t really come from the ideas in Ephesians, so it seems a bit of a fudge to force it in. What do you think?

Cheers
Matt

Again, with you all the way, Matt.

(unbelievably!!!)