The building doesn't make the Church

"Qu'une église soit transformée en une salle communale, une salle de concert, où est le problème?...Mais ce n'est pas le bâtiment qui fait la présence spirituelle." p151

Sarkozy is right. It doesn't matter if the church building is also a concert hall or a community center as well as a church. What difference does it make? "It's not the building that makes the spiritual presence."

I figure many of the mega churches of today will be community centers and multi purpose buildings of tomorrow. Building a single purpose church building today is a poor means of spending money. When churches begin to grow, starting a building program could be the worst thing for the health of the congregation. The focus becomes raising money for the building. Everything centers around the building. The building. The building. The building.

Then, you have churches with decline in attendees. You have a big building with few people to maintain the upkeep of THE BUILDING. I'm not against buildings as some are today. I'm against church revolving around a building.

Spurgeon's Church

After a horrible Friday night and Saturday morning worrying about our friends, upon their return on Saturday afternoon, we decided to stick with the schedule. We would go to Metropolitan Tabernacle, the church where the late Charles H. Spurgeon pastored.

What an opportunity!! I have read multitudes of Spurgeon's works and even in my early preaching days tried to use some of his illustrations. He was truly a great preacher of his day and God used him to reach London and still uses his works to reach the nations today. In fact, I was surprised to learn that his funeral went on for days and hundreds of thousands came by MT to pay their respects. What an influence!!

As we walked up the steps to the church I couldn't help but notice two signs. One read Metropolitan Taberncale Baptist Church (Spurgeon's). The other one stated that the 11am service was a Teaching Ministry and a 6:30 PM was an Evangelistic service. Funny. I thought the Church was God's not Spurgeon's. And why was there an Evangelistic service in the evening for visitors and a Teaching service for the non-visitors? Traditionally thinking is completely opposite. You try to preach to the heathen on Sunday mornings not Sunday nights. Sunday nights are reserved for teaching those who actually put forth an effort to return to church at night.

I didn't let those little signs detour me though. I was looking forward to a good church service and some good preaching. Somehow, I felt like the pastor would be Spurgeon himself reincarnated up there telling us how to live the Christian life. Exciting.

As we entered the church I knew I was in trouble though. Most of the men were in suits and ties. Now I'm all for someone dressing in a suit if they want. But usually when you see that many men dressed in suits you better hold on. My experience has shown me that the clothes people wear to church do indicate the level of formality one will find in the service.

An usher greeted us and saw we had three young kids under three among us two couples and stated forthright that they would HAVE to go to a separate room. He led us along a corridor beside the main sanctuary to a little room with a video monitor and nice neat chairs all lined up in rows. The audience would hear the songs but only when the sermon was given would they have video relay of the service.

My buddy and I found our way back to the sanctuary. We checked out the books for sell. You would think it would have be Spurgeon's works. And there were a few titles of his but most we from others. The latest was The Dark Side of Christian Counselling. And then, my favorite, a booklet entitled, "Are we Fundamentalists?" I started putting two and two together. I knew this was an Independent Baptist Church. I also was pretty certain of the answer to the question the booklet asked. What I had come to was a hard core true to type, Independent Baptist service. The kind you try to avoid.

We started to take our seats and was handed a KJV Bible and a Psalter. Other people began to file in, and I read the introduction to the Psalter. What the link above failed to reprint on the website but is clearly in the book itself was that the songs in the Psalter did not contain any non- trinitarian, sacramentist, modernistic, nor animistic hymns. I have an idea what a non-trinitarian hymn might be and maybe what a sacrementist hymn might be (anything that sounds Catholic), but what is a modern hymn or even better yet an animistic hymn? Weren't the hymns of Isaac Watts "modern" at some point in history?

The one man show begins. The pastor approaches the podium and prays for...how long? I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said at least 10 minutes. My immediate thought was Jesus and his condemnation of lengthy public prayers. Then, I was ashamed of myself for "judging". I told myself to focus on getting the log from my eye before getting the sliver out of my brother's eye. We sang from the Psalter and the music didn't seem to match well the words. All we had were the words anyway. But I figured this is how they sang in the 1600's and 1700's in London. Go with the flow. Then came the sermon...

You can watch it or hear it, if you like. You'll have to scroll down to the sermon entitled "The New Nationality." But beware it goes on for a solid 45 minutes, or at least it felt it did. And in all fairness some points were not so bad. But I thought I was going to have to burst out loud with laughter when he actually starting pointing out "true" doctrine in the infamous TULIP. He actually brought that up. Honestly, I thought my Reformed/Calvinist friends were past that silly thing. Did he actually say that Jesus only suffered for the saved ones? If you decide to listen to it, let me know what he actually said. I myself can't be bothered to find out.

I didn't take Communion, not that I really wanted to or would have, because you had to see a deacon for a Communion Card to be allowed entrance. Now I believe in closed communion, but I don't think we need to be printing Communion Cards. If you want to practice closed communion and not have any non-Christians there, have a separate service. Guaranteed few non-believers will show up.

My buddy and I returned to retrieve our wives and children. When I heard their experience of the service I lost it. I stated this was in fact a legalistic, Pharisee like, separatist, fundamental, Independent group. I wonder if Jesus would have a few words with them if he'd been there.

The room was for those children and their parents who were not able to worship. They had been given a full page front and back of rules to follow while in the holding cell. Things like no food. Children must be quiet. Children must be in the lap at all times. No moving the sacred chairs. Blah blah blah blah blah. All this sanctimonious nonsense about teaching children how to worship. And what did Jesus say about the little children? If you want your child to learn to worship properly, why not bring him/her to where the action is? And if you do think you need to provide a separate room, why does it have to be like you think the "real" worship service is? If it is a separate room, let the children be. Why not have a room where your kid can cry or scream if s/he needs to but at the same time that allows the parents to not be so self conscious of their loud kid? We've put our kid in nursery before. But she was not expected to sit still with hands folded and be quiet! And why were the parents/children/inmates only aloud to see the pastor perform on stage? That whole one man routine tells me that Bible idolatry and/or personality worship is very close by at this church.

Frankly, if I can help it, I will not be back at Spurgeon's shrine Church again. I hope to let Jesus judge them for their legalism. And it is obvious He will judge me for my lack of spirituality. Because even though I am of the opinion I was sitting in a modern day Christian Pharisee synagogue (Tabernacle as they call it), the place was packed out with hundreds of people in attendance. I simply can not get my head around that. And I have to admit, or so it seems, they must be doing something right, if I do not approve or feel welcome and at home there.

It did my soul good afterward to visit the Bunhill Cemetery, right across from the John Wesley House. What a breathe of fresh air!

Pro-giving

This is a follow up from the post below.

So many times in the realm of ideas and philosophy I tend to state what I am against but not what I am for. I take a more defensive stance rather than an offensive. So, in an attempt to state what I do believe about giving, I give you this post.

In review, I am against church or denominational mandatory tithing. I am against the idea of the church being the storehouse of God. It simply is not.

As Christians we are to support its mission, which is to be examples of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, despite how much we fall short. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. This is how we do it.

If you earn some money, first determine how much you can give back to God happily. Set it aside and then give. That may be 1%, 10%, or 50%. The percentage does not matter. You may not even know the percentage. You may can only joyfully give $5 out of $1000 you make. Fine. Give the $5. But if you can raise your threshold of giving, you will notice God's provision.

This system is not a the-more-I-give-the-more-I-get system. This is not health and wealth which is a lie too. This is one way that God has give his followers to be active in his work everywhere. You decide how much you can participate. I've seen $10 go further than large amounts.

This is not exhaustive but does give the basic idea of Christian giving

Anti-tithing

Disagree that Christians are required to "tithe," or give 10% of their income to the church.

Proponents of the teaching have as Malachi 3:10 as their proof-text, as was the case in tonight's sermon. The argument is tied to the word "storehouse," equaling the "church."

I did a quick search in the OT for the word, "storehouse." It is actually made up of two Hebrew words 1) house and 2) treasure. It is mostly a place for storing things such as wine, oil, and food. What one finds more often is that the word "treasure," relates to the riches of kings or the riches of the house of God. In the book of Ezra and Nehemiah one finds these references to money being paid to the treasury (of work). And in Nehemiah 10:38 one finds that a legit Levite was to take a 10% of the tithes and bring them to the "storeroom," (the NIV is a bit tricky here, I prefer "treasure room," rather than "storeroom.") of the treasury. However, the word for "treasury," is the word used in Malachi 3:10.

A couple of observations: 1) In the above mentioned Ezra and Nehemiah passages that speak of money being paid or brought to the treasury, there is no mention of it being a tithe. 2) In the Nehemiah 10:38 passage, one does bring a tithe but Nehemiah 10:39 shows that it was not 10% of anyone's income.

Someone may want to say that God's people (i.e. the children of Israel) were to take care of the needs of the priests (and maybe later even the workers of the walls and temple) by giving them items that would sustain them. And that by comparison, church members should give 10% of their income to sustain the church and her ministers. Thus, we should all give 10% to the church.

It is true that all the other tribes were to support the priestly tribe, the Levites with tithes. And even the Levites had to tithe what they received. But this does not connect the "church," with a "storehouse," not even by comparison.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) has one word for the two Hebrew words and that word comes from a verb meaning "to store up," giving a definition that means a place for keeping things safe. A storehouse.

I am pretty sure as Christians we are not suppose to be giving to the church so she can "store up," what we've given. In fact, as Christians we are not to store up treasures (same word as above) that will disintergrate.

We are not storehouses, keeping it all in for ourselves, are we?

Click on this link for the ironic name of this church pictured above.

Are Causes hamartia?

I went to church on Sunday.

I went to a, what looked to me like a younger tamer version of, Woodstock festival on Saturday.

I found some interesting differences between the two events. Now the "Woodstock"-like festival was a local Celtic festival celebrating a huge mark for, we'll say, local Celtic studies. So obviously, it was nothing like the French church service. Those differences are evident but we might as well mention them anyway. The festival was lively with lots of music, lots of dancing, lots of beer and local cider, lots of people, and lots of fun all culminating in one weekend. The church service happens every weekend with the same few people, little music (well there is more music than anything else), little enthusiasm, little interaction, and overall little benefit.

But the differences I saw were over the importance of incorporating social justice into the lives of those in attendance. Let me try to illustrate this. All over the church I see signs encouraging people to get involved in social justice causes mainly by buying commerce equitable (fair trade or the French site) products. One gets the feeling that if you buy fair trade you are being a good Christian. OK, fine. I have no problem with fair trade (except in some cases with cotton but that's another post).

At the Celtic festival I found a booth where people were selling various products and people ready to get you involved in making sure everyone gets a fair trade around the world (ohh, except Coke, and they are evil just because they are). I've even had the chance to talk to one of the more outspoken advocates of fair trade; I happened to be near her when I ordered a glass of that Satanic brew.

These are two institutions having the same goal; involvement in a cause for the betterment of humanity. But are these two groups being properly involved in the greatest good? What's the importance or even motivation to be more involved in social justice? I thought about this during the sermon when I heard the French version of Matthew 6:33 where righteousness in French is rendered justice. That may satisfy Christians who need a biblical mandate to get them more interested in social justices. But for others, they are motivated to get involved as a result of being affected by something even bigger than the cause of the day. However, if the Christian thinks that being more socially active ensures that he is a good Christian, then he has missed the mark. I am not saying social justice is not something good for a Christian. Sure it is. If you have seen the movie Amazing Grace about William Wilberforce, you have seen an example of how getting involved in social justice projects can have a huge impact on those around you. I am saying that, for a Christian, being involved in any cause without being connected to an even higher goal is missing the mark. He's simply getting involved to look good and possibly for selfish reasons.

The same is true for our earthy friends who put all their energies into their "causes," whether it be fair trade or something else. All of us want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. So, often social causes are a way to participate in something larger than ourselves. Stopping AIDS in Africa, promoting recycling, bring attention to child abuse, or buying fair trade products are all great in and of themselves. When one is involved in a project with others for a common goal, one can have this bigger-than-me feeling fulfilled. But it's not enough. Sure, one may be remembered as a great philanthropist and have a huge commemorative statue erected on their behalf. People may look to this one as an example, but the mark has been missed. It's been missed, in my humble opinion, because righting wrongs in society is the indirect result of people being in touch with the greatest good, God. Otherwise, we all become idol worshipers missing the Creator himself and helping others for pure self promotion.

Protestant vs Catholic

I think I have figured out the main difference between Protestants and Catholics. I must preface my answer by saying these observations are localised. This is just what I have observed from my interaction with Protestants and Catholic in this tiny part of France I live in.

Literacy.

Yep. I go into a Catholic church and I see a ton of paintings or sculptors depicting some scene of the sacred. Tons of symbols everywhere. Even the mass is a symbol. The robes the priests wear are symbolic. The Scripture is read. The homily spoken. The songs sung. Granted, there is usually an order of service (that's to help us outsiders follow along or for those who are not used to coming to church often). But by and large the faithful have it all memorized. Afterwards, everyone exits the doors and finds their way back home or some other Sunday afternoon activity.

At the Protestants. The walls are white (or at least plain). You might see a cross up front somewhere. The service is usually routine. You sing from a book a couple of songs. You pray out loud or silently (this is one oral part of the service). You sing again from the hymnal. You sit down and "turn in your Bibles" to Book Chapter Verse and hear a sermon usually read for a literate audience. While you are trying to pay attention to the 3 to 5 points (outlining is highly literate skill), you notice the only vestments on the walls are things written, like a verse or two. Afterwards, you get plenty of oral interaction. People usually come up to you and give you kisses and talk to you for a minute or so.

I wonder if the reason Protestantism is not more widespread in France is because they are trying to appeal to the mind instead of the heart. Who knows? I say let's learn from each other. The Protestants can learn how art can help us engage in worship, and the Catholics can learn how to fellowship better.

Exploring Church History

For a while I have been on a journey to understand the relationship of church history to today's church. If indeed history can help us from repeating past mistakes, then I want to learn from the past.

So far, I've only been able to wade through about the first 200 years or so. This period interests me the most since it is pre-Nicean (meaning before the Council of Nicea 325 A.D.).

Most of this comes from NT Wright in his book The New Testament and the People of God, that I just finished reading in my spare time. I did consult Forumromanum for some date clarification. These are just notes, so forgive the mess. I'll comment where I feel the need or want. =) As you will notice, this is not a complete nor even a good time line. There are plenty of great and integral time lines on the web (Church History Time line, Year by Year Blog [to 7o A.D.] are two good places to get your feet wet, if you are interested in decent time lines).

Age of Apostles (30-100 A.D.)
The death and Resurrection of Jesus. The lives of the Apostles to the death of John the Revelator.

• Tiberius (14-37 A.D.) Roman Emperor
• Pontius Pilate 3rd Judean prefect 26-32 A.D. (These dates have not been confirmed. Wasn't Jesus crucified in 33 A.D.?)
• All through the time of Christ and shortly thereafter was an expectation that God would save Israel from Roman oppression possible through revolt or political actions.
  

• Caligula (37-41A.D.) Roman Emperor
• Philo at Rome

• Claudius (41-54 A.D.) Roman Emperor
• Banishes Jews from Rome 52 A.D.
  

• Nero (54-68 A.D.) Roman Emperor
  
• Paul's first captivity in Rome 61 to 63 A.D.
• Epistles Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, and Philippians (I call them CEPP to help me remember the "prison epistles) 61 to 63 A.D. These books were probably written under house arrest (Acts 28:30-31) of Paul in Rome and not during his imprisonment (around 64-67 A.D.) by Nero. Formally, I had attributed those works to being written in the carcere mamertino (Maritime Prison). But hey, it was my first trip to Rome. I was ignorant (still am) about a lot of stuff. When I get a chance I hope to put together "Paul's Rome," or what Paul could have seen in Rome.
  
• Great fire of Rome 62 A.D.
  
• Nero persecution 64 A.D.

• Vespasian (69-79 A.D.) Roman Emperor
• General Titus destroys Temple in Jerusalem 70 A.D. (possible fulfillment of prophecy of Jesus)
• Construction of Coliseum began 70's A.D. Someone mentioned to me that the Coliseum was able to be built because of the Jerusalem Temple loot that Titus brought back. The inference is that there were hidden riches in the Temple from the reign of Solomon; thus, a pagan sports arena was financed by the former Christian God's Temple. In short, paganism had triumphed over monotheism and the proof was in the "bigger" monument built. While it is possible that Herod's Temple could have contained some valuable things, it is not likely that it contained any of Solomon's treasures. Those were forever lost (or hidden) with the Babylonian invasion. If the Coliseum was financed by the Titus Jerusalem loot it was probably inconsequential. The construction of the Coliseum had already begun before the fall of Jerusalem. I imagine that the Coliseum was built by the taxes of the Empire more than the values hidden in Herod's Temple.
• Masada 74 A.D.
  
• Titus (79-81 A.D.) Roman Emperor
• Coliseum completed
  
• Domitian (81-96 A.D.)
• Questioned supposed blood relatives of Jesus about the Messiah and his kingdom
• Felt threatened until the Emperor was told that Jesus' kingdom was heavenly not earthly. By consequence, he stopped persecution.

"We know far less about the history of the church from AD 30-135... [than some have proposed]. There are just not enough sources." --Wright p341. Wright does declare that there are some events we do know with a pretty good bit of accuracy. This gives us at least a picture of the Christian world at this time. He proposes

• 70 Fall of Jerusalem
• 90 Domitian investigation of Jesus' relatives
• 110-14 Pliny's persecution in Bithynia
• Some brought to him accused of being a Christian.
• Asked Trajan what to do with the areas "infected through contact with this wretched cult."
• = widespread in Asia beyond the evangelized area of Paul
  
• 110-17 Ignatius' (of Antioch) letters and martyrdom
• killed under the reign of Trajan
• letters written while traveling to Rome to face martyrdom
• bishop of important Roman Syrian town
• preached unity of each local church around their bishop (could mean there had been a schism of the mixing of Christianity and Judaism or the preaching of docetism, which states that Christ did not actually die, it just appeared that way)
• Christianity born of Judaism but not Judaism
  
• 155-6 Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Born into a Christian family
• possibly baptised as an infant
• "86 years of allegiance to Christ"
• said to have personally know John the Apostle
• = small Christian community in Smyrna that recognized Jesus as king and denied pagan gods within 40 years of the crucifixion
• = a Gentile mission of church- an allegiance to a Jewish-style Messiah before the fall of Jerusalem
  

Some quotes from Wright that I particularly like:

"Why Christianity spread rapidily is because Christians believed that what they had found to be true was true for the whole world." p360

"If we know anything about early Christian praxis it is the engagement of mission...World mission is thus the 1st an dmost obvious feature of early Christian praxis." p360-1

"Baptism and Eucharist were well established in the mid 2nd century." p361

Since Paul had already made theological conclusions about baptism (Rom 6) and the Eucharist (1 Cor 10), there was no need for the gospel writers to investigate these practices in their writings. p362

"[Paul] told the story of Jesus as a Jewish story, indeed as the Jewish story, much as Josephus told the story of the fall of Jerusalem as the climax of Israel's long and tragic history. But he told it in such a way as to say to his non-Jewish Greco-Roman audience: here in the life of this one man is the Jewish message of salvation that you pagans need."p381

Spirituality outside the Church

"This ["positive"secularism] means nothing of the sort that the Churches have to dominate society, to impose on it their rules, to attach to it a moral code and even a calender. First, because the religious fact can be independent of Churches. One can "believe" without belonging to any "organization." p16. (emphasis his)

So, if I have translated this correctly and if I understand Mr. Sarkozy's words, he is saying there exists a "spirituality" (emphasis mine) outside the institution of the Church.

While this concept is not new, we've seen it in America during the 19th century Romantic literary movement, I am surprised to hear it every time it is said. And I partly believe it. Sarkozy used the plural, Churches, when he spoke about spirituality. This is to say there is spirituality not only outside the Roman Church, but also outside any institutional church, which would have to included every flavor of Protestantism in France.

So what does this mean in regards to our own spiritual life outside the Church (to whichever one we may prescribe ourselves)? I think it means that no institution has the right to impose itself on society as a whole. And I would agree to a point. Having the Church as a political force is a super bad idea. But I also want the Church(es) to be able to practice its religion as it sees fit. However, if anyone wishes to practice religion differently, they should be given the freedom.

Besides, I think many would agree that we have our own spiritual life outside the congregation that we visit on Sundays. But what happens on Sunday is that we come together with similarly liked minded folks. Granted, some people get "spiritual" on Sunday, then forget about it for the rest of the week. But there are others who are truly trying to live their faith daily.

On the other hand, I ask, "Is there a such thing as 'church' authority? If so, how much influence does it or should it have over the people?" Most of us would agree, it shouldn't run the State. But outside the political realm, how much do I conform to it, as imperfect as it is? I am not a Transcendentalists, in the strict sense, but I also believe I can connect with God and other believers outside Sunday worship.

Feel like I am caught up in a story

I have been looking at orality vs literacy issues. Right now, I am exploring the elements of a story.

NT Wright, although writing about how the NT relates to "the people of God," offers some insights into worldviews and stories. What he said about the elements of the story is what has caught my attention. And I feel I am in the middle of a story.

In a story there is a sender sending an object to a receiver. This is the mission. The object is entrusted to an agent who can not complete the mission because the opposition is stronger than the agent's "help." At this point it would be good to illustrate the point as Wright does with Little Red Riding Hood. The mother (sender) sends food (object) to the grandmother (receiver) by Little Red Riding Hood (agent). She can not deliver the food because of opposition (the wolf) who is stronger than her charm (help). At this point the mission is truly in danger of failure. But the story moves into the next phase. The agent becomes the receiver and there may not be a sender. So, Little Red Riding Hood now becomes the receiver. A new agent is needed to bring relief to the situation. The wood cutter (new agent) comes in order to overcome opposition with his ax (new helps). This mission is completed, in other words the Red Riding Hood (new receiver) gets rescued (new object) by the wood cutter (new agent) thru his ax (new helps). The initial sequence is repeated and the mission is completed. Red Riding Hood escapes the wolf (opponent) and deliveries the food (object) to grandmother (original receiver). Now, I don't know if that is exactly how the real goes or not, but it does illustrate the point. My apologizes to Wright, who obviously can explain this better than I have.

Don't worry if you got lost in the details (it took me awhile to get this down also), but maybe you can see the point. There is God (the sender) who has a message (object) for the world (the receiver). He has commissioned his church (the agent) to deliver the message (the object), but the opposition is strong. However, because of the Cross (the new agent with new helps etc) the gates of hell will not prevail. The mission can be completed.

Whatever our opposition is today, Help is on the way. We are in constant need of receiving this help. It will come, then we will be able to accomplish the original purpose.

Dan 10:11-13 He said to me, "O Daniel, man of high esteem, understand the words that I am about to tell you and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you." And when he had spoken this word to me,I stood up trembling.Then he said to me, " Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Freedom in All We Do

We've been looking at and discussing the church trying to figure out if there is change in the air and what we should do about it. I hope you have enjoyed the mini-series. I have learned a lot and continue to gain more insights. I will be temporarily suspending my thoughts on it for awhile. The reasons are many but the main reason is that there is a lot more on which I need to read and reflect.

Here are some issues I want to pursue:

• Monastic Christianity in the 21st century.
• The first 300 years of Church History in order to establish Church worship and praxis in that time.
• The relationship between Christianity and Paganism and the battles they have had with each other.
• More familarity with the Emergent Church mentality both for and against
• The Secular/Sacred Divide
• The role of and gifting of Preaching and Pastoring in the Emergent Models
• Etc etc etc

What I want to leave this talk with is that no matter what form of church we prefer, may we all within the body of Christ allow freedom to those who differ from us. May they know we are his disciples by the love we have for each other.

Dualism, Holism, and Secularism

Just finished up listening to Mike Frost talks. Overall, not bad. I was a little disappointed because most of what he said was nothing new. I guess the writer of Ecclesiastes did know what he was talking about after all(hehe).

The only thing that really got me perturbed was in his first talk. He mentioned that Christianity has become dualistic (i.e. it has separated secular life from sacred life). He passionately asserts that this separation comes from Greek influence on Christianity and that this is not what was ever intended. From what I understand his co-author goes into more detail about the holistic approach to life that Christianity inherited from Judaism. While I agree wholeheartedly that the Jewish worldview had a more holistic (the sacred and secular are united rather than separated) understanding of the world, I wonder how the whole tribe-of-Levi thing is dealt with as well as the choirs of David.

Is there a divide between the profane (the common) and the sacred?

Parenthesis:I made this statement in seminary that the reason many people leave there confused (besides the fact that some had little foundation going in and really didn't know what they believed) was that the sacred was handled so much that it became profane. -End of parenthetical rabbit trails.

For argument sake, let's assume MF is right. Jesus meant for there to be no divide between the sacred and secular. What do you do when secularism becomes the dominant religion of a society?

IF we kept the "dualism" of Christianity, would that help or hurt our cause? I am almost willing to say hurt in a bad way. I am hesitate though. The thing that holds me back is can or would people search for the sacred if it were separated in a secular context? Experience answers "no."

So, I continue to mull...

Perception is Reality-Edited Version

After this post, I will need to go put out some fires across the blogsphere (well Dayspring Project is the only one I know about). I appreciate all the comments from the others ( Normality with TJ and Pastor Philip at Every Home a Church and my great friend Kc ).

I know I have a lot of conversations open. I kinda like that, in case I get stuck for content, I can continue them. =) I am going to turn the corner a bit today. Eventually, we'll get to the fact that I really am for non-traditional church models (despite what you may have read or thought from previous posts). But before I do, I wanted to see what others are thinking about concerning the mindset of a "church."

Anyway, this is the heart of this post. How do you take either a culture that thinks in a traditional church manner and transform a group of people into thinking of themselves otherly? In my limited experience (back in the States) I was asked to plant an ethnic church. I was able to group some believers and started a Bible Study, but they never did see themselves as a church. They only saw themselves as a group who got together to study the Bible. Even though I tried to let them lead, with partial success, they never saw themselves as a church. Of the churches I have been a part of or pastored, they would have never seen themselves as a church (in the sense of an organic church) if they were to go that route.

But apart from my anecdotes, if a group of people never see themselves as a church can they be a church? On the other hand, if a group of 2 or 3 can perceive themselves as a church, can they be organic? How do we change perception?

Some have said we instill in the DNA of the church the need to be outgoing instead of incoming ("Go and Tell" vs "Come Here" (to hear)). But if that group of people has in its DNA that the believers must go to a central place (house or house of God) on Sunday, will they really be organic in the Neil Cole's sense?

Maybe I am so far off base. I suspect I am.

(see further clarification on comments to Jeff)

Where is the Church?

I thought I would finally start my series on the church.

But first I want to explain a couple of things. (You can skip the next two paragraphs, if you want and go straight to the post)

First about blogging in general. I have only been at this for about a year and a half or so. I have seen bloggers come and go. I've seen people become very successful and some not so much. I started out blogging as sort of a notepad for writing my thesis in graduate school. But it soon turned into a place to write about whatever. I enjoyed it and I was surprised when I actually begin to make blogger friends. I started thinking about how to increase readership and how to write for my audience. So, blogging became a way to make a name for myself. I quickly learned that blogging for that reason was very self serving for me. I put it down for awhile. Then, with my new job, I really had to decide in what direction my blog was needing to go. After moving here, I really never thought how I could use this blog. So, I just sort of floated along hoping to not loose all the readers.

Then, after language school, I had time to ponder in what new direction I wanted to take the blog. I have decided to TRY and focus on ideologies of Christianity. I hope that is broad enough to allow me freedom to blog, yet narrow enough to bring some focus. So, whatever things I am trying to get work through, one might find it here.

Which leads me to the real content of this post.

I have been thinking for some time (maybe 2 to 3 years) the ways "church" is being redesigned. I first got interested in this when I read some stuff by Leonard Sweet (Aqua Church and SoulTsunami). I had never heard this before, and it seemed refreshing. I even ran into a couple of people more versed on "this," who helped me see some of the importance. During seminary, you hear ad naseum about postmodernism and emerging church (these terms may need defining, but that may have to wait). Then, I started having some questions about the movement, and at the same time seeing major problems in the "traditional" movement. I put it on a back burner until just before Thanksgiving of last year, when I had to read Jake Colson's awful book. (So You Don't Want To Go To Church Anymore). That was the straw that broke the camel's back. I decided I had to figure this out. I just want to add that this book is NOT what made me bring a back burner idea to the front. It really was the last straw. I do not recommend this book because it is so poorly written. But if you want to read it, go for it, for I will be using it as a guide as I critique and ask questions concerning this "new way of thinking about church." (BTW I will probably be using a ton of Christan-ese in these posts, so if you are reading this and are not Christian, you might be left out. However, you are still welcome here and still welcome to comment and ask questions.)

Now, I have not figured it out. Not even really understood it that well. But to comfort most of you, I am not going through an ecclesiastical crisis. I still believe as mostly as I always have with some tweaking here and there. However, depending on what side of fence you will be falling, you will agree and disagree with me throughout the entire series. So, let's talk and try to figure out this thing called the church.

I am a teacher by trade, and the only way I know to get a discussion started is to ask a question.

Where is the church?

I've had a lot of thoughts about where to begin this series. But today offered one solution. My wife and I had planned to go to what has been labeled a "traditional" church. That is one where people meet and there is a set formula for worship, usually songs of praise, prayer, and preaching, and possible fellowship. (This is an oversimplification. I realize that.) But that church was meeting in another town, so we decided to go the beach. The sun came out for about 15 to 20 minutes, and we got out and was in amazement of God's creation. When it began raining, we got in the car and read some scripture and prayed.

So, did we really have church? Can church happen at the beach? Was this the temple of God today?