The Church as a Particular Gathering of Particular People

I'm one of those who tends to overextend myself.  I overextend myself sometimes in my schedule, I over extend myself in my expenses (usually buying books) and I overextend myself in the arguments I choose to engage in.

The last couple of weeks I have found myself involved in arguments regarding the nature of the church and spiritual gifts.  When someone brings up a new topic for me to engage in I feel like Prince Humperdink in Princess Bride when he said:

Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work. But I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it. I'm swamped!

I'm swamped with arguments and debates here, so if I haven't gotten involved in your personal debate please understand that its not that I don't care.

And oh by the way I do enjoy these debates and I hope that those of you who are taking the other side in these things understand that I see you as friends and these as friendly debates.

And so today I wander back into the debate on the church which started with my review of George Barna's book Revolution.  As I mentioned in that review I find it to be a completely horrid little book (how's that for friendly debate? ;-)) and downright silly in its proposal that we can leave the church to be the church. 

I have been challenged in various ways on this.  I've been challenged on what my view of the church is, i.e. is it the universal body of believers or the place with a building and a 501(c)3 tax exemption.  I've been challenged to prove that the church is a covenantal community and some other things that I can't think of right now.  But I mention those two because I think they hit the nail on the head.

The first question creates a false dilemma and the second asks us to prove something the bible assumes.

To juxtapose the universal church and the building/501(c)3 misses the point because neither phrase, in and of themselves, are adequate to describe the church.  The bible nowhere identifies the church with a building or a particular tax status (and neither have I in any of my posts).  The church is simply a group of believers and their children associated together for the purpose of worship and godly living.  There is nothing in that definition that presupposes a building or a particular tax status.

At the same time, the adjective "universal" is inadequate as a term to describe the church.  Notice that I said "inadequate," not wrong.  The idea of a "universal church" is a theological construct that shows the unity that all believers have with all other believers around the world, throughout history and into the future.  It is a term that encompasses that great multitude that no one can number in Revelation 7:9.  And so it is proper to speak of a "universal church" if we are speaking of the believers union with all other believers.

But the "universal" reference is a secondary usage of the term "church."  In the Scripture the term church overwhelmingly refers to a particular group of believers gathered together in a particular place.  In mentioning this I am still answering the first question about what a church is and am moving toward an answer to the second question. 

Here are several lexical definitions of the word "ekklesia" which is the Greek word for church.

(1) in a general sense, as a gathering of citizens assembly, meeting (AC 19.32); (2) as the assembled people of Israel congregation (HE 2.12); (3) as the assembled Christian community church, congregation, meeting (RO 16.5); (4) as the totality of Christians living in one place church (AC 8.1); (5) as the universal body of believers church (EP 1.22)Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. 2000. Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

1711 ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), ας (as), ἡ (hē):  1. LN 11.32 congregation, an individual assembly of Christians (or OT believers Ac 7:38; Heb 2:12), usually with leaders who conform to adj. standard, and have worship practices, with members interacting, more or less local (Mt 18:17; 1Ti 3:5; 1Co 11:16–22; Jas 5:14; Rev 1:4; 1Pe 5:13 v.r.); 2. LN 11.33 church, the totality of all congregations of Christians at all times (Mt 16:18); 3. LN 11.78 assembly, gathering of persons for adj. purpose, even riotous (Ac 19:32, 39, 40)
Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor

1577 ἐκκλησία [ekklesia /ek·klay·see·ah/]  1 a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly. 1a an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating. 1b the assembly of the Israelites. 1c any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously. 1d in a Christian sense. 1d1 an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting. 1d2 a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake. 1d3 those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body. 1d4 the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth. 1d5 the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.
Strong, J. 1996. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) . Woodside Bible Fellowship.: Ontario

I realize I am boring you to death with those lengthy definitions but I do so to point out that the overwhelming usage of the word church has to do with a particular group of Christians.  Friberg only cites one passage where the word can refer to the "universal body," and Strong only mentions such a thing as one of many definitions of church. 

You will notice that the middle definition I have given you up here from Swanson does acknowledge a kind of universal church, but that universal church is made up of individual churches - " the totality of all congregations of Christians at all times."  In other words he is not definiing "universal church" as all the individual Christians of all times, but as all of the (particular) churches of all time.

I will apologize for boring you some more, but I think it is helpful to reference Louw Nida's discussion of the word "church."  Louw Nida finds three definitions for ekklesia:

ἐκκλησία, ας f

a congregation: 11.32

b church: 11.33

c assembly: 11.78

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. 1996, c1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) . United Bible societies: New York.

The first reference is to "congregation," which Nida defines as follows:

11.32 ἐκκλησία^a, ας f: a congregation of Christians, implying interacting membership—‘congregation, church.’ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ‘to the church of God which is in Corinth’ 1 Cor 1.2; ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘all the churches of Christ greet you’ Ro 16.16.

Though some persons have tried to see in the term ἐκκλησία a more or less literal meaning of ‘called-out ones,’ this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning of ἐκκλησία in NT times or even by its earlier usage. The term ἐκκλησία was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership. In general Greek usage it was normally a socio-political entity based upon citizenship in a city-state (see ἐκκλησία^c, 11.78) and in this sense is parallel to δῆμος (11.78). For the NT, however, it is important to understand the meaning of ἐκκλησία^a  as ‘an assembly of God’s people.’

In the rendering of ἐκκλησία^a  a translator must beware of using a term which refers primarily to a building rather than to a congregation of believers. In many contexts ἐκκλησία^a  may be readily rendered as ‘gathering of believers’ or ‘group of those who trust in Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Cor 1.2, it is possible to translate ‘Paul writes to the believers in Christ who live in Corinth.’ Such a translation does, however, omit a significant element in the term ἐκκλησία^a, in that the sense of corporate unity is not specified.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. 1996, c1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) . United Bible societies: New York

I want to highlight that the church, the ekklesia, is "an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership."

The second definition, or should I say translation, of ekklesia, is "church," which is as follows:

11.33 ἐκκλησία^b, ας f: the totality of congregations of Christians—‘church.’ σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ‘you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church’ Mt 16.18.

 Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. 1996, c1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) . United Bible societies: New York

With this definition you will notice that Louw Nida is hitting on the idea of a "universal" church but again you will notice that the universal church is not made up of unrelated or disconnected individuals, it is made up of "congregations."  The universal church is made up of individual, particular churches, not individual, particular Christians.

The third way in which Louw Nida translates "ekklesia" is "assembly."

11.78 ἐκκλησία^c, ας f; δῆμος, ου m: a group of citizens assembled for socio-political activities—‘assembly, gathering.’

ἐκκλησία^c : ἐν τῇ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπιλυθήσεται ‘it will have to be settled in the legal assembly’ Ac 19.39.

δῆμος: ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος … ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ ‘but Alexander … wanted to make a speech before the assembly of the citizens’ Ac 19.33.

It is possible that in ἐκκλησία^c  there is somewhat more focus upon the people being together as a legal assembly, while in the case of δῆμος the emphasis is merely upon a meeting of citizens. But in the NT one cannot distinguish clearly between the meanings of these two words.

ἐκκλησία^c  and δῆμος may be rendered in some languages as ‘a meeting of the people who belonged to that place’ or ‘ … who were inhabitants of that town’ or ‘ … whose homes were in that town.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. 1996, c1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) . United Bible societies: New York

Obviously, this has a greater reference to political than ecclesiastical assemblies, but I throw that in to add weight to the notion that a church is an assembly.

On many occasions I have heard the story of Dick Halverson's airplane ride out of Washington DC, where he discovered what the church really is.  You may have heard this story as it has made the rounds many times.  When Halverson was the chaplain of the US Senate he was flying out of DC one time looking down on the city when he suddenly realized that he was looking at the church.  What he meant was that the church was not made up of particular groups of believers meeting in particular places around the city.  Rather it was individuals scattered throughout the city bringing Christ to the city.

Halverson was dead wrong!

The church is the church when it is gathered in assembly.  Think of it this way.  There are lots of terms that are used to describe God's people.  In the Old Testament, they were called Israelites, Jews, children of Abraham and other things.  In the New Testament era we are called Christians, brothers and sisters, believers, followers of the Way and other things.

There is no moment of the day, at any time, when believers cease to be believers, Christians, followers of the Way and those other times.  The people of God never cease to be the people of God.

And yes, the members of the church do scatter to minister and witness and this is a vital aspect of being a Christian.  But, in the Bible, when the term "church" is used of the people of God it has particular reference to the people of God in assembly, not scattered. 

Now I am not meaing to be too strict about this.  Today is Monday and I am alone in my office.  I am still a member of the church.  I have not ceased to be a member of my particular church because  the entire body is not gathered for worship here in my office.

But I can call myself a member of the church because I have associated myself with a particular body of believers who meet regularly for worship.

And this is where I go back to the question of a covenantal community and say that it is something the Bible assumes rather than proves.  At the root of being a church is "interacting membership," and "well defined membership."  Meeting together is at the heart of what it means to be a church.

A church is a group of believers and their children who associate themselves for worship and godly living.  By definition they meet together regularly.  By definition they have an identifiable membershp.  And by definition, the members of the church have obligations to one another.

Because the church is a particular group of believers with an identifiable membership we are not free to think of ourselves as disassociated Christians.  The following statement from Barna is patently and biblically false:

Ultimately, we expect to see believers choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal "church" of the individual.

We don't create a "personalized church."  There is no such thing.  We join a group of believers and identify with them.  It is also patently and biblically false to say:

Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God). What matters is not whom you associate with (i.e. a local church), but who you are.

As Christians who we are is defined by who we associate with and we are not free to be minimally involved in or disassociated from a local church.

Now, to the revolutionaries I want to say that I know this doesn't answer any of the particular questions and issues you may raise.  I am only trying to provide a framework for understanding these issues.  Whatever you decide about your involvement in a particular church, if your decision is based on the idea that you can be a member of the universal church without being a member of a particular church, you have an errant starting point.

Similarly, in the review I tried to show that if your starting point is that your own personal spiritual welfare takes precedence over the spiritual welfare of those in the church you want to leave then this is an errant presupposition.

In my post John Calvin on the Revolution I tried to show that we ought not to be hasty to leave a church, even though that church is riddled with sin.

In short, I am saying that we must be very careful to be rigorously biblical, and be careful that we are not simply adopting the spirit of the age and baptizing it in Christian terminology.

Comments

[Zeke]

Whatever you decide about your involvement in a particular church, if your decision is based on the idea that you can be a member of the universal church without being a member of a particular church, you have an errant starting point.

My blogging/commenting/podcasting hiatus lasted all of about 36 hours when I read this. The rest I was willing to let season while I attended to other matters, but you realize of course that in this construction you have just made association with a local church a condition of sonship. Care to rethink or rephrase that?

[David Wayne]

How do you figure this Zeke? Maybe you can help me out here on how to phrase it. I am thinking in terms of definitions. I am saying that, when the word "church" is used in the Bible it has reference to a particular local assembly. I agreed that we can derive a theological construct known as "universal church," but in practical terms when the Bible talks about a believer's relationship to a church it has a particular local body in mind. I'm simply saying that, when most people use the phrase "universal church" they don't have the biblical background of the word "church" in mind.

So, to ease your mind of where I think you were going with this, no I am not saying that we are saved by being a member of a local church. But I do believe we are saved unto membership in a local church.

[Dignan]

Bravo David! I don't think the importance of fellowship in a particular community can be made enough, particularly in this day and age of individualism.

[Steve S]

David, of all the things you have written in response to Barna's book (and I believe this is the third post on it), this one by far is the best. I know that there are still areas in ecclesiology wherein you and I would not completely agree, but you have framed your arguments very well here, and have helped me see a more middle ground that I need to be heading for.

Thank you!
steve :)

[Steve S]

Oh, and just for the record: Some of us who might fall into your use of the term "revolutionary" (maybe not, though) do not see it as individual at all. For many of us who have left the established, institutional church, it is to seek fellowship with other believers in a different form and structure. But by no means is it individualistic or "lone ranger"!

Perhaps I'm not in Barna's camp, then, given that statement that I just made. But it was worth making the point, I thought.

steve :)

[Henry]

I'm sure I will anger some by saying this, but I think much of the "revolution" that's taking place today is deeply rooted in pride. I'm no friend of Rome (and it's dogma) but I think the disdain that we have for anything that smacks of "tradition" is unwarranted. Frankly, there are some good traditions.

It is clear (especially from the pastoral epistles) that Paul had a high view of the apostolic tradition he was handing down to Timothy (i.e. the "good deposit" entrusted to Timothy.)

We live in an era which deeply despises any notion of accountability and (yes, even) discipline.

[Steve S]

Like just about any theological issue (or any issue at all, for that matter -- witness the political debates here in the USA), different views can be expressed in their extreme. To say that the "revolution" (not even a word that I personally apply to myself or my beliefs, but the one in discussion here which relates some to where I'm at) is built on pride is to point out the flaw in SOME people. There is just as much pride in any other system of religion or church or tradition. Pride is a sin that is basic to every human being, in my opinion.

That was why I was trying to explain to David that not all who would be forced into the category of "revolutionaries" are abandoning everything about tradition or history.

Henry, you didn't anger me, but I think that your comment does deserve some balance from a different viewpoint. :)

steve :)

[David Wayne]

Steve S. - Your comments are most welcome and I agree with you and Henry in this regard. I do think Henry is right but that you are right that some people are prideful. I will give one slight nod Henry's way and say that we often don't recognize our own pride. I can only speak for myself, but I know that on several occasions I have done things ostensibly out of commitment to Christ which, looking back, I think had more pride in them than anything else. The pride was in showing how much more committed to Christ I was than others were.

On the other stuff you raise I do understand that many of the new forms of church we are seeing today are reactions to individualism within the church and are seeking new ways to build community. I don't know if you consider yourself part of the emergent movement or not, but I think this is one of their strengths. Even though I'm not on board with much of Emergent I think their critique of modernistic individualism within the church is spot on and they have recovered, or are recovering a sense that the Christian movement is at root, a communitarian movement.

I would still like to see those of you who are leaving traditional institutional churches wrestle more deeply with the implications of your responsibilities to the churches you are leaving (and by the way Steve, I feel certain you have done so), but I do think the critique that Emergent and some other movements offer is a valid one.

I think Barna and Emergent are offering some similar critiques of the traditional church, but I think the answers they propose divulge. Barna seems to advocate a more individualistic response than Emergent.

[Henry]

Oh there's no doubt that pride is destructive in all it's various forms-and that we in the "institutional" church (I really hate that terminology but I'm forced to use it in these Emergent discussions) have our own pride issues.

I'm somewhat of an anomaly among my age group (I'm in my early thirties) because I tend to be much more "traditional" in my thinking. I'm of the mindset that there is "no new thing under the sun." We may use different terminology, but the issues we face have been around for a long time (ecclesiastical abuse, power struggles, false doctrine, "going to church" as opposed to "being" the church).

The book of Hebrews seems to indicate that since the infancy of the church there have always been "some" who see no need for the church. I have no problem with different venues for worship (storefront vs. steepletop, et.al) or different methods of evangelism. I think one of my main concerns is that in this age of myriad para-church ministries and web-based ministries (like forums/message boards/blogs) people see these as a viable alternative to worshipping and serving in a local assembly of believers.

Much of what we disagree about has very little to do with substance, and a great deal to do with style. I have no problem extending grace in those arenas where the "gospel" isn't compromised in any way.

And by the way, I really enjoy the respectful tone of everyone here. I love to talk theology so I appreciate the dialogue.
† Henry

[Zeke]

I would still like to see those of you who are leaving traditional institutional churches wrestle more deeply with the implications of your responsibilities to the churches you are leaving

When a believer leaves one church to go to another, are they obligated to wrestle deeply with the implications of their responsibilities to the church they are leaving? And what, in your view, are those responsibilities? And why would you assume of revolutionaries that those responsbilities are not being wrestled with deeply enough?

[Zeke]

I'm sure I will anger some by saying this, but I think much of the "revolution" that's taking place today is deeply rooted in pride.

I'm certainly not angry, but I must say I'm becoming acquainted with the backs of people's hands around this topic. It's just to easy to be dismissive of this.

What, Henry, if it weren't about pride? What would you have to say to the revolutionary whose motives were pure?

[Chad]

David, Your insights here are balanced as always. Even when I disagree with you, I respect your tone and understanding of these issues. I am personally finding myself more aligned with the emerging church of late precisely because of their emphasis on community building and less on individualism. And it really irks me when anti-emergent people who don't know any better equate it with individualism and liberalism.

Too few people take the time to really understand all the various viewpoints and I'm sure I speak for a lot of folks when I say 'thanks' for being so thorough and objective.

[cavman]

Boy,
amazing how we can talk past one another at times. People take things we say in completely different directions than intended. People read 'disdain' into pastoral pleading. People take questions as pride.

I thought David's post was great, trying to set the bibilcal use of the word we toss about with so many extra-biblical connotations. He's going to great lengths to make sure we try to talk about the same thing, instead of past each other.

Oh, yeah, when we leave any church (without moving) we should seriously weigh the matter before Jesus. I see lots of church hopping- sort of like serial monogamy. I've only left one church that I was a member of. It was a difficult decision- I think (key word) I made the right decision. I was not in synch w/the prevailing theology of the congregation and my gifts were not being utilized. I ended up in a place where I was in theological agreement, and had much greater opportunities to offer the gifts God bestowed to the benefit of my brothers and sisters. I have seen to many leave churches for less substantial reasons. It is not an easy process- and the counsel of godly friends should be considered as well.

[cavman]

oh, and one my profs used to remind us "she may be a whore, but she's still my mother."

There is plenty wrong with the organized church... but if the Great News is preached, and the sacraments offered its still a church- an assembly of people for whom Jesus died. Because I love Him, I'll defend her (in as much as she is right).

[knnuki]

Your attempt to narrowly define church (primarily by using opinions of others about the word ekklesia, not the scripture itself) is obvious. I believe God Himself, and His church, is much bigger than this. You unnecessarily limit yourself.

[pgepps]

Well said, preacher!

Meanwhile, the nattering continues. Henry and Steve, thanks for setting an example for others to keep a civil tongue in their heads when disagreeing!

Zeke--why do you ask questions to which you already [think you] know the answers? Why do you insist upon things you won't state for examination? Why don't you respond to others' requests for clarification?

Take it from an old debater--that's a sign of weakness, and you [if you're honest with yourself] know it.

It's really very simple, according to Paul: we are the members of Christ's body. Perhaps I am a finger, say, the middle joint of the pinkie. Now, if I separate from the hand I'm joined to, I'm still a finger.

But I'm a finger cut off.

And the body is injured.

Why would anyone want to dismember himself? Much less to be the piece cut off?

The true believer will no more live apart from the body than the flower from the plant. In the local, visible church or by death unto resurrection, Christ *will* unite His Body and His Bride, which are to be one flesh, one spiritual body, in the End.

Cheers,
PGE

[Zeke]

Zeke--why do you ask questions to which you already [think you] know the answers? Why do you insist upon things you won't state for examination? Why don't you respond to others' requests for clarification?

I ask questions to clarify what's been stated by somebody else. They're not rhetorical. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't state for clarification," and if there was a request for clarification on my part, I missed it and I apologize.

PGE, I know the congregational church. I've been in it for 12 years. On the other hand, what do the opponents of the revolution (sorry to use that term, it seems inflammatory, but Barna's put it out there) really know of it? I'm out here, and I meet face to face with these people. I read their blogs, I talk to them on the phone, I IM with them. Believe me, these are some of the most passionate believers I know. And they are actively seeking community, just not in the congregational churches.

Since I've been following these threads, there's been a pretty dismissive attitude about the revolution--it's about pride, rejection of universal truth, self-absorption, obsession with self-actualization... need I go on? Do you need me to recount for you the charges that have been laid here?

For goodness sake, nobody is talking about hacking apart the body of Christ. There are just a great many people who are seeking community and discipleship outside the congregational churches. If you equate this with cutting of members of the Body, then you have conflated church with Church.

What do we have to do to get past this so that we can have an honest dialog? What do I have to say to assure you and the other doubters that this is not an issue of pride? That I and others are not obsessed with self-actualization?

Cavman, we aren't really talking past each other. I've carefully read what Jolly and others have written, and what I repeatedly find myself objecting to is the following:

1. assuming that the motives of the revolutionaries are pride, a rejection of universal truth and self-actualization
2. equating leaving congregational churches with cutting off members of the Body of Christ--essentially, conflating church and Church
3. the assumption that leaving a congregational church is a rejection of the practice of Christian community
4. the assertion that pastoral authority is a necessary part of discipleship

Does somebody want to deal with these in whole or in part? Thanks...

[David Wayne]

Zeke - it's late Wednesday night now and I'm getting ready to go to bed and prepare for a happy thanksgiving with my family tomorrow, so I doubt I'll be able to take up this subject till next week.

However, I do want you to know that, even though I disagree with you on a good deal here I appreciate the interaction, welcome your comments and value you as a brother in Christ.

I hope that you and yours have a wonderful thanksgiving and I wish the same for all of you who are commenting here. I'll look forward to re-engaging on this and some other issues next week.

Many blessings to you all . . .

[Zeke]

David, Happy Thanksgiving to you David, and all the rest of you guys. I hope that love abounds at all your gatherings.

Peace, everyone!

[cavman]

Came across this in Bonhoeffer.

"It is the mystery of the community that Christ is in her and, only through her, reaches to men. Christ exists among us as community, as Church in the hiddenness of history. The Church is the hidden Christ among us. Now therefore man is never alone, but he exists only through the community which brings him Christ, which incorporates him in itself, takes him into its life."

[cavman]

Zeke,
Preliminary stabs at some of your objections- I still suspect talking past one another. Not out of ignorance or stupidity, but assuming common meanings of words at times. That and the tendency of debate to move positions toward the extremes.

1. What are the motives? Disillusionment? Disappointment? Frustration? I guess I don't have a clear idea what the numerous motives are for the numerous people who made this decision. None of us do. What are YOUR motives (sorry if they are mentioned in one of these threads)? But surely some have had the motives listed- whether they recognize them or not.

2. I don't think people are conflating church & Church. But you don't have church w/out the Church, and churches are manifestations of the Church. If we can be accused of somehow conflating them, you could be seen to making them antithetical or unrelated at best. It is the old argument: Church- organism or organization. At least that is the dilema I think you are falling into (though not so extreme as that).

What we are trying to say is that the organism is also organized. A Body is an organized organism. It is not one or the other but both. It is not Church or church (which I don't think you are saying), but it is both (which you don't seem to affirm).

3. I think we need to define what we mean by Christian community. I think there are elements of Christian community that necessitate a church, and those that are experienced in the Church, apart from a local church. Again, both would be best and most healthy. Yeah, I didn't define Christian community. Maybe later. But I will say that to leave the church is to leave part of Christian community.
4. What I find striking about Acts 2 is that the Spirit-filled community busied itself with the Apostles' teaching. They were not all peers. Also, from Ephesians 4 we see the grace Christ has apportioned in His Body. He made "some pastors & teachers to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the Body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the fullness of Christ."
Perhaps I'm missing something, but the Church needs all of these things if it is to mature. If the Body needs pastors to mature, don't individual disciples?

Remember, this is set in a context of grace. The local church, and its leadership, is a gift of God's grace to all of us.

[cavman]

Knnuki,
Sad to see you merely write off those man's words w/out looking at Scripture to see if he is accurate or not. It sounds like all you did was judge his work by your opinion. That really isn't fair.
That study of ekklesia did not deny the use of Church, but merely refects the reality that most of the epistles are addressed to particular churches, and speak of them as such. They addressed real situations in those congregations. If there were no such entities, to whom were they written? About whom were they written? The NT is filled w/churches, manifesting the Church. The goal is not to limit anyone or anything, but be faithful to Scripture- and that should be all of us.

[Zeke]

cavman, I haven't said why I am leaving the congregational church, and this probably isn't the place to go through my list. Suffice to say that as near as I understand myself, my motive is to seek a new form of discipleship away from the peculiar structure that seems so common to churches in America. Doing that means finding new community and finding new ways to serve and give. It certainly *doesn't* mean serving myself. I believe strongly that I am following a call on my life.

There has been an equation here of leaving a congregational church with cutting off a member of the Body. This certainly is conflating church and Church at least in part. You wouldn't say that of a man who left one congregational church and went to another. Which brings me back to the persistent question: why do you feel that attendance at a congregational church is not optional? I believe that for whatever reason, every congregational church that I have attended has a culture that actually stands in opposition to real community. I'm sure your church is different, though... I'll say that because I don't want to personalize this and it isn't an attack. It's just that when it comes to real, transparent community every church I have attended has been something of a dry well. I'm not the only one with that opinion, either.

Of course the Body has pastors, teachers, healers, comforters, etc. I just don't see why the congregational formula of Professional Pastor/ Church Building/ Board/ Order of Worship/ Scheduled Service that we all have become so familiar with is what we should all be content with. I struggle mightily to feed my family with my secular job, then I am asked to dedicate my time and resources over and above that to a building and a staff whose purpose is to... what? About 85% of all church budgets go to staff and buildings.

How can I follow a shepard who doesn't have the same struggle I do? One who's paid to give his spiritual gifts while I labor? Do I work all week to come to church on Sunday with my share of a paycheck to pay for another man to tell me how I should be giving more of my time for free to the church? Why are his spritual gifts so much more precious and valuable than the rest of our gifts? Why is it I can't be a healthy disciple without a professional pastor in my life?

So, here's some honesty for you on a Monday evening. Note the question marks, friends. I'm only leaving because I can't find satisfactory answers at church.

[Steve S]

I feel for and with you, Zeke. Your questions are very similar to what caused me to take a different look at community. I know David has expressed the sentiment that he and others here are "weary" of being accused of defending the institutional church, and so I definitely don't want to hijack his blog with too much more of this without his permission. However, I do want to voice my agreement with your comment about the environment of many churches being actually a hindrance to true community.

This is what I refer to when I say that those of us who are seeking a different expression of community are not just "lone rangers" leaving the church because we aren't getting what we want. My questions started when I actually was a "professional minister", drawing a portion of my income from serving in the church on staff and on stage. I began to look out at the people on a given Sunday morning and feel like they didn't really have the opportunity to grow, mature, and use their gifts because we were paid to do it all.

Is the institution something that needs to be corrected or reformed? I'm not sure I really solidly know that answer. (Which is why I don't want David to think I'm attacking it here.)

Anyway, I hope that cavman, David, and others reading these comments by Zeke will see that he and I really are trying to come at this in a very careful, gentle way. In the same way that David is weary of being accused of defending an institution, I know that I get weary of being accused of cutting myself off from the Body! :)

Here's to continued, fruitful dialogue on this subject. (Zeke, if you're interested, check out my blog by clicking on my name below -- especially the posts on "What Is Simple Church" [I believe they're in August's archives] where I describe my journey and progression from a vocational minister to a part of a community of believers worshiping together in a non-institutional environment.)

steve :)

[cavman]

Zeke,
Thanks for sharing more of your heart.
I agree, many congregations are building obsessed. Recent studies have about 2 pennies of every dollar given to churches headed toward missions. Makes me want to cry.
Some pastors are well paid. Many others know the struggle you have. Since they have to be available when lay people are, the many evening meetings strain family life. They feel pressure, too, for the church to be 'successful'.

Like Steve pondered, I think we need to reform the churches we are a part of. That can't happen when those who see what is wrong leave.
On the other hand, you don't want to stir up dissenion. Quite the dilemma.

Yes, there are many unhealthy churches (you may want to invest some time in Peter Scazzero's The Emotionally Healthy Church). Some pastors are working to change church cultures so they are healthy. This is the point of Natural Church Development- healthy churches grow, therefore seek health not growth.
Are you familiar with www.ntrf.org? They are a 'house church/family church' movement. That might be a group that you'd really click with. They share many of your concerns.
I actually share many of those too, but am committed to other solutions.
Grace & Peace,