Bear with me if you will... I have noticed from a couple of threads that it seems there is an assumption of what church is and that being an organization and place where people worship God in different but equal ways. What if church doesnt mean that? Would then our conclusions about church, which I believe are based more on what we see around us today rather than the 1st century, not change? Is not so much of our discussions, whether traditional or progressive, about defending what we, as different groups, are doing now as right? To me, this lumps everyone in the same boat of defending their status quo regardless of beliefs and practices. I know some would disagree and have come to realize that we dont assemble to worship separate from the rest of life, but what have we changed about the institutional nature of church we inherited if conservatives and liberals both defend current practices which are 90% the same? I just wonder how much actual study is done into the culture and practices of when our NT was written and/or soon thereafter, as well as, 2000 years of inherited church teachings. Dont get me wrong, I know that many do. I am just noticing where I think I see the energy going. From my personal (Restoration Movement) viewpoint, I think that there is value to holding to the traditions, but that coCs (preachers) dont know what that is, because they project what they see today back onto the Bible while others say, It doesnt matter what we do, just love one another... I believe both viewpoints fall well short of what is found in the NT and/or what God may be expecting of us as Jesus body (church, ekklesia) on earth. So, I am asking you, what is YOUR definition of church and what do you think God expects from us as an ekklesia? I know the common definitions/usages of called out and love one another and, honestly, these are often meaningless if we dont wrestle with how that is to be practiced in our assemblies. Regardless of how authoritative we view what 1st century Christians practiced in their culture, what they practiced is set in historical stone. So, what do you think they practiced? Do you believe they met in public buildings patterned after the Roman city hall (basilica) with a stage and chairs dividing rulers from subjects by a knee high wall? Do you believe NT churches gave into a church treasury or privately collected at home? Do you believe Timothy and Titus were gospel preachers (Protestant employee pastors) or apostolic representatives of Paul with authority beyond a local congregation? For that matter, do you believe elders were in every (house) church or throughout every city (Titus 1:5)? These are the assumptions that I believe need study and examination, not defending how right we are. My studies have led me to see that little of what we do today is first century, but rather early 4th century State-Church and 1600 years of inherited teachings that we have modified somewhat in coCs by changing some terminology. I am afraid that what MANY believe is NT Christianity is nothing of the sort. What do you think?
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:19:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015