Friday, September 16, 2005

Give the Church to Non-Christians?

Richard, over at Sunday Papers, posted a A Manifesto Calling for a New Way of Being and Defining Church. This is list of ideas about redefining church. The question of why we need to redefine church seems a bit strange to me. I am not sure why Christ's definition is not enough for us. To be sure, many churches have departed from the biblical definition. But the solution is surely not a "redefinition." We need repentance. But on to the point.

Richard's first suggestion reads:
The first reformation gave the bible back to the people and we need to give church back to the people (not just christian people).
I have to wonder, Why would the church give the church back to people? Who else has it? Did someone other than "the people" come and make off with it while we were sleeping?

Secondly, why would we give the church "back" to "not just Christian people"? Did they ever have the church? I can't recall anything in Scripture that the church was anything other than Christian people.

And why would we suggest giving it to non-Christians? What would they do with it? The church is a unique organism, built by Jesus Christ. It is not ours to give away to anyone, much less to people who are not a part of it through faith in Jesus Christ. One of the major problems with the modern church is that unbelievers have had too much say in what goes on. It has distorted the church from its biblical mission and has come close (and even succeeded) in distorting the gospel. To "give it" to non Christians would certainly be a redefinition of church. It would also be a radical departure from the Scriptures.

This is an idea that appears to have absolutely no legitimate, critical, biblical thinking behind it at all. While I can't testify to what brought this thought on, there is no cogent reason for it that I can come up with. Dialogue is certainly good, and I would be interested to know what drove Richard to this conclusion. But all ideas are not equal and not everything is worthy of dialogue. It calls to mind a point from my original post on this blog where I said, "I have long lamented the fact that the World Wide Web has given every idiot with a computer and a phone line the idea that he has something people need to hear."

Richard, if you happen by here for some strange reason, please understand I am not calling you an idiot. I wrote those words two months ago with no one in mind. My point in bringing it up here is simply to wonder out loud whether or not your idea is really worthy of serious thought. It seems misguided from the very beginning, built on a flawed foundation. So Richard, feel free to comment if you wish. I would be interested in seeing your defense of this.

It seems to me that this list begins with a flawed supposition. The Christians, those who follow Christ wholeheartedly by faith, need to take the church back from the grasp of the world. It is only then that the church can have a true impact in the lives of people.

This list reminds me of much of what goes on in modern ecclesiology with the emerging church, seeker churches, purpose-driven churches, and whatever else is out there now. There is some good that we can learn from all of these. But they start from flawed presuppositions in many cases, and worse yet, they are "ingenious" for the sake of being "ingenious." There are buzzwords that go around, like number six in this list that talks of "a series of chaotic but intentional encounters with God, one another, and the world, founded on the holistic teaching of Christ, and encompassing the whole of life."

What????? Chaotic but intentional encounters with God? It sounds great. What does it mean? Who has a clue?

Why is not the simplicity of the gospel and the simplicity of life in Christ enough for us? Why redefine the church? Why not just go with what God said. Too many people today are putting way too much thought into these issues, thought that isn't being driven by Scripture.

So let us do something radical. Let's return to what the Bible teaches us about the church. Then, we won't need to give it to anyone. We will be tools in the vineyard of God (1 Corinthians 3:5-9) that he uses to call out a people for himself from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation (Revelation 5:9-10). Our greatest impact on the world will stem from our greatest obedience to God driven by loving God with everything that we have and loving our neighbors (Matthew 22:36-39).

4 comments:

Phil said...

"I have to wonder, Why would the church give the church back to people?"

Isn't the question does the church need to be given back to THE people, rather than just "to people"?

"Who else has it? Did someone other than "the people" come and make off with it while we were sleeping?"

Institutionalised religion??? From my perspective this is certainly an issue that needs to be considered in the UK. People being told what to beleive, rather than having space to work it out for themselves....

Just some thoughts...

Phil

Larry said...

Thanks for your comments Phil. That was a quick response.

In my mind, I was making no distinction between "to people" and "to the people." I didn't think that seemed to be the point of Richard's comments.

With respect to institutionalized religion, I would think that certainly needs to be considered, both in the UK and in the US, and probably all over. But there again, we get back to the definition of hte church that Christ gave. It seems to me that once we return to His definition, "institutionalized religion" is seen not to be a church at all.

"Being told what to believe" is a problem only if we do not begin with a proper authority. The Bible tells us what to believe. It doesn't leave much room for "working it our for ourselves." The question that remains is "Will we submit to God's revelation?"

Do you think that perhaps we give human minds (described in Eph 4:17ff in a very unflattering way) too much credit? Can the human mind really come to a legitimate conclusion about what to believe apart from the mandate of God's word?

I am not suggesting a "believe without thinking approach" that "institutionalized religion" sometimes gives. I do believe that "working it our for oneself" can be a dangerous journey, since our minds are corrupted by sin.

Thanks for your interaction.

Anonymous said...

This is just more pseudo-spiritual claptrap. Much of what passes for "Christian thought" these days falls into this category, IMO. Richard, in all likelihood, has some vague dissatisfacton or even anger with "church" as he knows it. Rather than trying to improve his church through biblical action, he posts his 10 theses like a later day Martin Luther, except that he is theologically to Martin Luther what the Lilliputians were physically to Robinson Crusoe.

Can you tell that I get tired of rants like Richard's? It is because they are so common. And so vacuous.

Anonymous said...

i can see your point

"Church' is the body of Christ and belongs to God

but the impact of the church and the expenditure of its resources ( one trillion recently according to barna) has mostly been spent on itself (those bloody big buildings)

so i can understand richard saying that we need to give the resources of the church out to those who Christ died for.