Considering that the emerging church movement (EC) is a popular topic on this blog and that the articles written thus far have not appeared to be critical of or even acknowledge some of the more questionable aspects of the EC, I felt that for my first (and maybe last, depending on how this goes) guest article, I would address some of my perceptions of the weaknesses of the EC. If I am unnecessarily hard on the EC (hopefully that is not the case), it is partly because I wish to balance those who are unnecessarily easy on it. If I get another opportunity to post on here, I hope to share a review of D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.
Until then, and without any mention of he who shall not be named in fear of political spammers (nope, I’m not referring to Alan Keyes)… here is a video of Solomon’s Porch, one of the premier emerging churches in the country, located in Minneapolis. Presumably, this video was filmed and edited by Solomon’s Porch (SP from now on) members with the intention that all that is shown is representative of SP’s beliefs and church structure.
Since the video mostly entails short snippets of quotes from different members of the church (including Doug Pagitt, its leader and founder), it is difficult for a viewer to do much more than “read between the lines” of what is said. With that in mind, I have decided that the best way to begin a discussion of the potential worries I have with SP (and other ECs) is to pose some questions in response to what is heard on the video.
We just knew that the way that we had done Christianity all of our lives was no longer a viable option anymore. - Unidentified man
Why was your Christianity not viable? And if this new way is no longer “viable” and is biblically-justifiable, shouldn’t this apply to all Christians? If so, why? If not, what makes it right for SP but not the rest of the Church?
Solomon’s Porch began in Jan. 2000 and it’s a church… - Pagitt
What is your definition of a “church” (in particular, in the context used here, the small “c” version)? And what should be the ultimate goal and “target audience” of a church? I would say that a Christian “church” is a gathering of believers in Jesus that allows for fellowship, teaching from the Scriptures, and worship of the Triune God. Thus, the goal would be to facilitate the abovementioned functions with a “target audience” of Christ-confessing believers.
Ultimately, community that is Christian needs to be a community of love. - Pagitt
I concur. However, how do you define love? Is it defined as only encouraging, “nice” behavior toward others or does love also involve reproach, Godly criticism, and correction?
For example, there is no statement of belief at this church or statement of faith. There is not like a set-in-stone theological writing that everyone in this church has to adhere to. Because everyone does have different ideas and all of those ideas are important and valued. It is very cooperative that way.” - Unidentified woman
A statement of faith is probably not always necessary, but having no theological beliefs to which to hold is preferable?? Does this mean that not every member of Solomon’s Porch has to adhere to the Bible and its teachings? Or what about the cardinal Christian doctrines, like the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, and the atonement (to name a few)? Also, what if someone has a wrong idea about God? Why is that valued? How does this compare to the Bible’s constant teaching that there is no place in the church for wrong ideas about God (Titus 1, 2 John 1:10, etc.), implying that not all “ideas are important and valued.”
Things run into far more trouble when there is a strong authority structure because they always go bad. Look at government, the history of governments, the history of countries, look at the history of monarchies, you look at the history of the church. The larger and more powerful and dominant the structure is, the more deeply flawed it will become… Okay, so our community meets in the round, so we face each other. And if we say we believe that people matter and that the spirit of God moves in people, that there is no person that has a privileged place to speak about God in our community over anyone else, that everyone has the right to speak for God, then we should try to level the structure and the playing field as much as possible so that can happen. - Pagitt
It would seem that in protesting strong authority, you have neglected the inherent problems of a weak authority structure and the fact that many New Testament apostles specifically set up authority structures to defend against false teaching and to strengthen the congregation. How do you defend against heresy or weak theology at SP with supposedly no authority structure? What if someone stands up and says that Jesus didn’t really die as a ransom for our sins; rather, He died to give us a perfect example of love. Or if someone claims that the Trinity doesn’t exist? Is there someone who will speak loving correction to those errors? Or is it left to each person to figure out for him or herself what is true?
How does everyone having “the right to speak for God” jive with what the Word says in Romans about everyone in the Body having different gifts? After all, some are given the gift to teach, and have been trained in and studied the Bible at length, while others are gifted in other ways and have not done the type of study necessary to teach the Scriptures to others. Where in Scripture do you find support for this anti-authority ideal?
Early on, people got together and said, “Hey, should we do communion?” Yeah, let’s do communion. How should we do communion? I’ve heard the kingdom of God is supposed to be like a house party, so let’s do communion like a house party. - Unidentified man
When you “do communion,” where is the focus? Is it primarily on the community of believers or is it on Christ and His sacrifice?
All that hokie “What Would Jesus Do” stuff came from a very good spot. If Jesus were walking in the flesh, if this has been the time that he had been incarnated, what would be the issues that would be on his plate? I believe that you better bet it would be racism, and it would be environment, and it would be globalization, and it would be feeding the masses, and it would be these sorts of things. - Unidentified woman
Where does repentance of sins and worship of a holy God fall? Sixth, seventh? Ok, perhaps I’m being too harsh. But I am definitely sensing a pattern here where the primary aspects of the gospel are being ignored or pushed aside for the peripheral. As for the issues listed, what Biblical text lends you to believe that they would be significant to Jesus? After all, Jesus didn’t even bother to mention fighting against slavery, and were that still going on today, don’t you think that would be more important than protecting the environment? Instead, Jesus seemed to focus on repentance (Mark 1:15), caring for the downtrodden on an individual level, following God with your heart, etc.
I see the Bible changing, I don’t see it as stagnant. So for us as a community of Christians to say you need to believe this one thing and hold it tightly and make sure it is never questioned. That’s a real waste of energy with all things we could be doing in the world. - Unidentified woman
To me this is the silliest and possibly most troubling quote in the video. Two things. One, why is the Bible changing now when it seemed to not be changing when Jesus walked the earth? After all, didn’t Jesus constantly refer back to thousand-year-old Scriptures to correct people? Did Jesus think they were changing? Perhaps I misunderstand; what exactly about the Bible is changing? Second, here we are again, protesting an exaggeration of the truth and not understanding what the Scriptures teach. After all, didn’t Jesus spend a monumental amount of his energy correcting people’s wrong ideas and making sure that they believed correctly? Does not Titus 1:11 say that false teachers “must be silenced”? Or 2 John 1:10 inform us that we are not to welcome false teachers into our homes?
We deal injustice happening around us and within us. It’s that sense of entering into the mess and being okay with the fact that we’re pretty screwed up in actuality. - Unidentified woman
At what point do we leave the mess behind as a community of believers and “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect?”
I have no agenda to grow and convince people of things that they don’t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind, and loving thing you can do; to go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope-producing for people who are already disturbed and hope that there is another option. - Pagitt
Perhaps something else was meant here, but isn’t this the EXACT OPPOSITE of the gospel? By this definition, wasn’t Jesus very ungracious, unkind, and unloving when he told the rich young ruler that he had to sell all of his possessions to make it to heaven? After all, the young man obviously didn’t want to be convinced of that. Would you say that your church is more for pre-Christians who want to dabble on the edges of Christianity, trying it out for a season before deciding whether or not to stay with that religion, instead of Christians who are looking to grow deeper in their walk with the Lord?
I am genuinely interested in answers to these questions. Hopefully, via the comment section, this can initiate some good discussion regarding this article and video. Ultimately, my interest is not to aim “friendly fire” onto fellow believers, but that Jesus and His holy Word would prevail.
Darius, thanks for this article. But it is so long, I’m going to have to wait until I’m finished with today’s responsibilities before I have time to read it and comment. (The internet has turned me into one of the Sesame-Street generation, in spite of my advanced age–I can’t handle long passages unless I have a chunk of peace and quiet.)
Yeah, sorry it’s so long. I tried to cut it down as much as possible.
Darius, the primary goals sought in ZFT writers is quality of writing, intellectual honesty, and inspiring others to seek for the truth. Your article does an excellent job of all these, making you (IMO) one of the best writers to date. I look forward to your future articles (something I would not say is true of many others).
As you indicate, this is a core question that needs to be answered by the emerging church. If what they mean is that fake, ritualistic worship that has no bearing on the believes life needs to go, they are completely right. If they mean that accurate theology and the Christian lifestyle commanded by Scripture can be ignored though, there is a problem. “Fake” Christianity helps nobody, whether it is ritualistic ceremonies or freestyle stunts.
This is something I pushed really hard at my current church when becoming a member. I attended the church for over a year before becoming a member because I wanted clarity regarding what the leaders thought “membership” meant, and what expectations the church placed on its members. In my mind, a “local church” is a group of believers united for mutual edification in their Christian lives and in urging and assisting one another in Christian ministry. A church that doesn’t expect its members to minister to others is failing in its duty. Fellowship and teaching should be part of edifying the membership.
Absolutely. I can love my lesbian neighbors without believing their lifestyle is godly. (The same is true of the many neighbors I have who are co-habiting outside of marriage.) The unbeliever is lost, and needs a Savior. “Love” doesn’t mean that I support what you do or say.
Again, viewing all ideas as valued depends on what is meant. We do want to minister to people of all views, and help to bring them to a deeper knowledge of God. That said, on areas of Biblical clarity the church out to be steadfast in what it believes. It is stupid to fight over meaningless disagreements, but the core of the Gospel is what makes us a family. The Bible IS unchanging, and the spread of the Gospel IS important. Anyone who claims otherwise is on very dangerous ground (if not outright NOT a Christian).
I really enjoyed the article, and I didn’t think it was too long. Sometimes its necessary to formulate detailed questions, and this is one of those instances. I would have asked very similar questions, so this one is right up my alley.
I want to preface everything I’m about to write by stating that I believe in the Biblical concept of church unity, and we, the called out ones, constitute Christ’s body on the earth. So nothing I write is, in any way, intended to be condescending or destructive.
I think that all congregations should be able to agree on some core fundamental beliefs. Otherwise, how do you gauge unity? Can you unify around the idea that everyone has their own idea? I don’t think so. That runs very counter to New Testament teaching.
Pagitt’s argument against past abuses of power with authority structures sounds logical, but it seems to be overly-reactionary. Rather than forming a better authority structure to counter potential abuses of power, he decides to do away with it altogether. This is unscriptural for a number of reasons. Leadership positions were given by Jesus as gifts to the Body of Christ for the purpose of helping Christian mature in Christ (Ephesians 4:10-14).
10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
-NIV
I’d be interested in knowing how this particular EC compares to others who name themselves with that label. Because I wonder if SP may not be all that representative of the whole (indeed ECs may resist classification into one tidy description).
Jasen, you attended an EC for a while. Was your church similar to this one?
After watching the video (I read the article prior to watching) I’d say my complaints were fewer than yours, Darius, just because some of what they said in the video could be interpreted in more than one way. (In other words, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt until I could learn more specifically what they meant.) However, I do entirely agree with you about the “Bible changing” part. Yes, the Bible is applicable to many cultures which are different and constantly changing, but the Bible itself doesn’t change.
I’m guessing that churches are constantly trying to reinvent themselves because they constantly look back at the previous generation and say “they failed in X, Y, and Z ways; we can do better.” For instance, my generation of church is different than my grandparents. I guess I view the EC as just another wave of churches wishing they did a better job of what Christ asks of them since they react negatively to what their parents/grandparents did at church. I’m in favor of an ongoing updating of certain stylistic nonessentials in church–who’s to say my style is the best? But, in doing so, I would not want to stray from the basic core Christian beliefs.
Atanamis said, “Darius, the primary goals sought in ZFT writers is quality of writing, intellectual honesty, and inspiring others to seek for the truth. Your article does an excellent job of all these, making you (IMO) one of the best writers to date. I look forward to your future articles (something I would not say is true of many others).”
Atanamis, perhaps you could raise the average quality of ZFT posts by contributing a guest article? Better yet, why don’t you write for us at least once a week?
Darius, I may soon be acknowledging the aspects of the Emerging Church you find troubling.
I can’t speak for Solomon’s Porch, but I would like to address a few of you questions.
They have a page on their website called “What makes a church?” - which unfortunately does not seem to be working at the moment. Perhaps the “about us”, “our dreams”, and “things of importance” will help.
Is there reason to assume he means something else than what you would? Being “rooted in the Scriptures” perhaps they would say that 1 Cor 13 defines love well.
They might not have a formal statement of beliefs (which btw, all other emerging churches I’ve seen do have one, although they tend to be briefer that other church groups’), but they do have things which are preferable - like in the links above.
Notice that Pagitt says “we should try to level the structure and the playing field as much as possible,” he doesn’t say they don’t have an authority structure. They do have leadership, which has qualifications and responsibilities.
Everyone has different gifts, but are only those with a certain gift supposed to do that thing? Are only those with the gift of giving to give? I’d say the the believer’s gift will be the primary sphere, but it won’t be their only one.
Their website says - “Each Worship Gathering we share Communion. It serves as an opportunity to remember what Jesus did through his death and resurrection and as an “appetizer” for the “Great Feast” in the Kingdom of Heaven. All who desire to follow Jesus are invited to participate.”
I think Jesus would be concerned about those things, but he would know they were the symptoms and not the disease. Btw, slavery is still very much alive today, not just so much in the Western World.
I’m not sure what Pagitt meant by not disturbing people. He seems to be saying that they are focusing on reaching those who are already disturbed. And it’s nearly impossible to convince someone of something they don’t want to be convinced of anyways.
Thainamu, I would say that Solomon’s Porch is one of the more radical emerging churches with regard to things like what I addressed in the “experimental impulse.” Also, Pagitt has some unusual ideas about truth and community that I don’t really understand.
The church I was part of for a while is more conservative (some southern Baptist influence). It’s not really a self-conscious “emerging church,” although the leadership is influenced by emerging ideas, and it’s a part of the Mosaic Alliance - a Emerging Church network.
Jasen - “And it’s nearly impossible to convince someone of something they don’t want to be convinced of anyways.”
This may get into predestination, being called by God, etc., but how are we to know who doesn’t want to be convinced? Or, for that matter, who God will call? After all, no one wants to be convinced, it takes the Holy Spirit to get them to the point of being open to the gospel.
As for authority structure, yes, it does appear that they do actually have an authority structure (despite what they may have said on the video), but it does seem like they have pulled away from biblical structures and replaced them with their own.
Also, let me clarify one point. I don’t consider that video representative of all ECs, but rather the more radical edge of the emerging movement. Furthermore, I have no idea where the content even falls within Solomon’s Porch belief spectrum. However, combined with other things I’ve read and heard about SP, it would seem to be accurate.
As a friend of Jasen’s from the community and a lurker here, I would encourage you to consider Jasen’s comments seriously.
I think Thainmu also brings up a good point, which I know is irritating to frequent commentators on the “emerging church” topic (but true). The EC includes a lot of very different takes on faith, life and practice. It’s something almost like asking what protestants believe on Z or Y. You have to really ask what a certain kind of protestant believes and even then you know that many at the local church level (including leaders) believer differently.
As a friend of Jasen’s from college, I take his comments very seriously. Were you speaking to me or to someone else in particular? Like I just said (and have before), I don’t throw all ECs into the same theological basket. However, until ECs are willing to address the weak or heretical theology among them (as Mark Driscoll and others have done), they do get a wary eye from me.
“Is there reason to assume he means something else than what you would? Being “rooted in the Scriptures” perhaps they would say that 1 Cor 13 defines love well.”
I don’t know that there was an assumption of anything. He neither assumed they defined love the same as he does or differently than he does. It is just a question, and a pertinent one in my book. As most of us know, there was someone on another recent thread who mentioned love in the context of homosexual relationships. You never know some things unless you ask.
If I previously misrepresented the SP authority structure or lack thereof, I apologize. I think it was thainamu who said they should be given the benefit of the doubt. I think that is wise.
Atanamis - “Again, viewing all ideas as valued depends on what is meant. We do want to minister to people of all views, and help to bring them to a deeper knowledge of God. That said, on areas of Biblical clarity the church out to be steadfast in what it believes. It is stupid to fight over meaningless disagreements, but the core of the Gospel is what makes us a family.”
This comes back to how one defines a church. If it is first and foremost a method of providing fellowship and teaching for believers, then all ideas should NOT be equally valid. If it is for all comers (believers or non-believers), then to some extent, some tolerance should be extended to those who have not come to a saving knowledge in Christ. Personally, I think church is for the edification of believers. Becoming part of the community is a separate issue that the church should promote in its members, but itself be set aside as a center of holiness. The Bible never gives us an example of believers worshiping with pagans. The “church” was a place for Christians to gather away from the world and focus on their brethren and God. Within this church, the apostles left no room for bad teaching, wrong thinking, or unrepentant sin.
Thus, I ask at the end of my article if SP is perhaps a “way station” that possibly guides the lost to a slightly deeper (though still “milk”) knowledge and understanding of the Gospel. I actually would prefer this to be the case, as then I could better understand their belief that all ideas and beliefs are equal. I just don’t see the biblical or theological depth that is required of a Christian church.
Jasen, I agree that each believer doesn’t have just ONE gift or that he/she should only practice their strongest gift. However, I also don’t think that just because one is a Christian (or professes to be one) that they should practice EVERY gift. I know a lot of believers who are not gifted in preaching and will likely never be. For example, in the video there is a man who is talking about friends being the most important thing in life. I had written up a question in my article responding to this, but for the sake of space cut it out. Basically, I was wondering, assuming that the video didn’t drastically take his comments out of context, if this guy was corrected for his excruciatingly shallow idea of Christianity or whatever he was talking about. Are friends or people to help you out really the most important thing in life? And even if someone corrects him later, there is such a thing as teaching that is unhealthy and unedifying.
Thainamu and others… It seems to me that many of the EC movement leaders are primarily people who have been hurt by the traditional evangelical movement. Their protests are largely exaggerations of the truth, and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think (and this gets into Carson’s book) that the emerging movement has much to offer to the evangelical church, but only after it has first dealt with the weaknesses and even heresy within itself. Once that is accomplished, then the EC will find a much more welcoming environment from the Protestant church. And I do believe that “cleansing” will happen, though I don’t know if it occur before there is irrevocable damage done to the emerging movement as a whole. If it doesn’t happen in time, the EC will largely fade away, just as the American Anglican Church is doing right now. The only churches that survive are those that offer strong belief systems. A church like SP, if it doesn’t hold onto the basic tenets of the Gospel, will necessarily remain small and eventually wither away as a passing fad.
Nice to have friends.
There is widespread disagreement over what Biblical authority structures are. In fact, it was a major reason for alot of new denominations forming. I think there’s Biblical support for some pretty different structures Episcopal/Presbyterian/Congregational. I don’t see how the structure of Solomon’s Porch is different from what many Baptist and non-denominational churches do.
Darius, it’s likely true that emerging church types are hesitant to address “weak theology.” It’s probably partially in reaction to those who have been to quick to do so. They also tend to try to address disagreements by engaging people with a polite dialogue. If you start out by strongly denouncing someone’s views it’s likely they will ignore you and you won’t have a chance to change their minds.
Also, emerging types are very ecumenical, and so for instance, aren’t going to bother bringing up the issue of papal authority every time the talk with a Catholic (because after all the Catholic is a Christian, holding to the ancient creeds) and their time could probably be better spent.
While I would agree that this was true of the church MEMBERSHIP, there are many passages which suggest that church activities were open to unbelievers:
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-23.htm
Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (NAS)
Clearly, there was not an expectation that “unbelievers” would be refused entry into this assembly of the whole church. While I would agree that the church as an organization exists primarily to provide support to believers, there are a number of passages which suggest it is also a ministry to unbelievers.
Darius, I liked the article because the EC does have issues to resolve. One thing I believe that may help is to outline the genealogy of the EC. First, we must begin with Nietzsche’s attack on objectivity which can be summed up as his entire work is devoted to revealing the lie of objective truth. This is as inaccessible as a “disinterested observer” because we are always interested, always partial. Then, in the 1980s (once the death-of-God theology of Altizer died down), philosophers of religion (I’m think of Mark C Taylor and Carl Raschke in particular here) began to think Nietzsche in theology. In the 1990s, we have full-blooded theologians thinking Nietzsche (here I am thinking of Stan Grenz and John Franke). These people became the first “postmodern theologians.” Following them were people like Pagitt, McLaren, etc who wanted to put their theories into practice and we see the genesis of the Emergent movement. This movement lacked any kind of central cohesive creed or statement, but some wanted it (again, I have in mind Grenz). As a result, the Emergent movement splintered and various groups popped up. The middle form of the Emergent movement (which focused greatly on practice and little on doctrine while the first group was focused on theology and the later group was too splintered for differentiation) slowly surfaced as the EC while the others faded back from the limelight. It is in this particular sense that many of the critiques of the EC are right but fail to apply to the larger group of “emerging.”
The movements that all fall under the rubric of “emerging” are way too varied for a single critique, and it is with that outline with which dialog about “emerging” whatever needs to be contextualized. This is what makes it completely unlike any other group of Christianity (e.g. Calvinism/Reformed, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism) because it is not a centralized, arboreal structure which can be defined and categorized according to religious taxonomy. At its very core, it is rhizomatic and nomadic, the very instance of the War Machine (and, sorry, but I’m now referring to Deleuze and I don’t have time at the moment to really do him any justice).
“If you start out by strongly denouncing someone’s views it’s likely they will ignore you and you won’t have a chance to change their minds.”
Again, I don’t see this view based in Scripture. Jesus was quite strong in his denunciation of those in the temple selling sacrifices. There is a place for gracious discussion and a place for wham, bam, thank you m’am correction. And when it comes to weak or sinful theology WITHIN the church, the latter is usually the case. The NT doesn’t give much room for the former. After all, Paul said “what business is it of [his] to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
We are fighting for people’s souls, and any evil theology in our midst makes it hard to show a unified belief system to the lost.
Atanamis, I am not saying that non-believers should be barred from the church, but that the church gets itself into a lot of trouble when it begins to focus its service on entertaining the lost rather than edifying the saved. Focus on the believers while keeping in mind that unbelievers will likely come in from time to time. Thus, make the message understandable to the unchurched, but not to the point that it’s not building up the believers or advancing their faith. This is where I think some ECs get into trouble.
Darius, enjoyed the article.
As I learn more and more about the EC, it strikes me that it has the same problems inherent in any decentralized structure - most notably a lack of consistency. I think that valid criticism of the model needs to take this into consideration and not criticize it from a centralized assumption. In that sense then, it is going to be a requirement of the believer (*gasp*) to evaluate an individual EC for adherence to scripture and good doctrine.
The EC strikes me as a needed reformation in the stagnating protestant model of authority and hierarchy that’s developing. In both models, people are going to take it too far, but I think that the Church (especially in America and Canada) has swung much too far into an authoritarian model and needs a movement to purge traditions of men that have collected over the past couple decades (much like the Jesus Movement of the late 60’s).
“Atanamis, I am not saying that non-believers should be barred from the church, but that the church gets itself into a lot of trouble when it begins to focus its service on entertaining the lost rather than edifying the saved.”
“Entertaining” the lost? What do you mean by that? I do think a balance should exist between the edification of believers and reaching the lost. But we must remember that the eventual result of our edification should be reaching the lost, or reconciling them back to God.
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
(Ephesians 4:11,12)
The primary work of the ministry is reaching the lost. Obviously there are several functions in the Body that will assist in this. This is made clear in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20:
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
This shows us that the ministry of reconciliation began with Christ, and is now to accomplished through his representatives on the earth.
When I say “church,” I mean the building, the gathering of Christians. As such, a church is primarily meant to edify believers. The believers (the Church) then is to go out and reach the lost.
As such, a church is primarily meant to edify believers. The believers (the Church) then is to go out and reach the lost.
This is dead on, and one of the largest sources of problems within the church. It is my hope to write an article on this.
I look forward to that article. Personally, I think that churches that aim their message and service format at unbelievers or weak-in-their-faith believers promote evangelical laziness in their membership. Why go out and reach the lost in the community when the church is doing it for you by inviting them in to the service? That is not to say that the church shouldn’t have programs and ministries to reach the community, but only as a method to help organize the believers in their duty to reach the lost.
Plus, a worship service is necessarily for believers, since how can an unbeliever worship God???
Well it looks like you just wrote my opening paragraph…
Also Darius, you should check out Way of the Master if you haven’t already. Fascinating view on evangelism, very similar to this. Don’t let Kirk Cameron turn you off at first… watch “hells best kept secret”
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
My Sunday School class just finished the Way of the Master… solid stuff, even if it is a bit cheesy in parts.
an apropos blog post on this issue…
http://rianniello.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-do-we-have-church.html