Comments on: Build the Church

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:51:24 +0000

Thanks Andrew, I found your post enlightening.

By: James

James — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:49:16 +0000

Hey, Lindisfarne, do you have some thoughts here?

Good point EB, this really is important! I am hopeful of reading more contributions to this.

What about the church of the dispossessed (or disenfranchised as umonk would prefer)? What about some thoughts from those who have moved out, for various reasons, of the church building but are seeking to maintain faith and fruitfulness?

By: urbanmonk

urbanmonk — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:06:15 +0000

“it all comes to the surface with the word “use.” Like Church membersare there to be used similar to the way i use a tool. jesus didnt “use” people in that way.”

Amen..

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:03:00 +0000

On the surface I agree with the sentiment of the quote but there is a dangerous epistemology just under the surface that troubles me about it. Its authors seem to confuse the difference between being a ’sending church’ and a ’sent people’. The former, which is a very modernist term has a primary concern with the solid church (its growth and often is wrongly confused with the Kingdom). The latter with the liquid/fluid church. It all comes to the surface with the word ‘use’. Like church members are there to be used similar to the way I use a tool. Jesus didn’t ‘use’ people in that way. And the church doesn’t exist to grow. It exists to be a sign and foretaste of the Kingdom.

Perhaps this quote adapted from Leslie Newbigin might help:
“The church’s goal is not to make converts who make more converts who then make more converts in order to grow the church. There is no purpose to that other then the making of converts like one might advance the allegiance of a certain football team over other teams or sell cars to boost sales. That will not change society. That will not address justice or demonstrate the advancement and imminence of God’s reign. That will not promote healing and compassion. In sum, the world will not necessarily be better off with a bigger church. However the world will be made new when the name of Christ is advanced and those who call themselves his followers follow in his ways and in his purposes to his ends until he comes.”

By: emergingBlurb

emergingBlurb — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:44:47 +0000

I’m just going to be blatant here…sorry! This is an important post. We need to get a grip on who we are and what that means. Why has church has been reduced to an event when the church Paul established moved away from temple worship? Why is contemporary church a monologue? Where is connection?

And realising that church is more than a timeslot on Sunday morning is only the start of rediscovering what that entails. So as the church what is our charter, what is our core business? I think the answer to that is fairly basic. And yet as a church we don’t seem to be involved living out that charter, we just debate the theory. Very sad!