Comments on: Defining Church

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:49:01 +0000

The Church is definitely a people, not a place. An organic expression of the very living Christ Himself.

Speaking of the book “Pagan Christianity?” that Kevin mentioned (of which I also highly recommend), the sequel to it is out now. It’s called “Reimagining Church”. It sets forth a beautiful vision of the church based on the eternal purposes of God, and it picks up where “Pagan Christianity” left off and continues the conversation. (“Pagan Christianity” was never meant to be a stand alone book; it’s part one of the conversation.)

“Reimagining Church” is endorsed by Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and many others. You can read a sample chapter at http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org. It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/ . Also, have you seen the spoof video for “Pagan”? Very funny. Check it out at http://youtube.com/watch?v=hslswIal9u4 .

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:59:02 +0000

While I’ve found the comments to be insightful, I’m not sure the heart of the question is being answered. Bobby, it seems like your question was more of a practical inquiry than a theoretical one? I was assuming you’re interested in how our ecclesiology plays out in our current Internet- and technology-driven world. (Am I right in assuming that was your original intent?)

It seems like the words “community,” “body,” and “gathering” are used a lot in the comments. And it also seems like we can’t be/do church alone; we need others involved. It also seems that the Gospel of Jesus is a central element, as well as the Great Commission (make disciples, bring them into Trinitarian community, teach them what Jesus taught, etc.).

I would say that it is possible to be/do church without being in close physical proximity to one another (after all, the Church is united by the Holy Spirit, right?). I’d also say that community is done best when it is done in physical proximity to one another, and that technology is best viewed as a tool or a secondary means for building community or gathering for worship, not a primary one. Sadly, I don’t have any directly Biblical reasoning for feeling this way; it just seems like being able to stand next to someone in worship, sit in a circle and read Scripture, or weep with someone who is hurting is best done when you’re right there with them, not via twitter or satellite-feed. But then again, some churches are doing amazing and laudable things in the name of Jesus using technology, LifeChurch being one of ‘em!

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:19:50 +0000

Body of Christian believers that’s living out the great commission.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:19:27 +0000

Body of Christian believer that’s living out the great commission.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:16:16 +0000

Wow. Interesting.

By: justin

justin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:44:01 +0000

To make this short, I am not a theologian or a scholar by any means _ don’t know why I felt I had to preface my comments like that _ but I think that however we define church it must be able to hold true in it’s simplest form; for me, two believers. I think there needs to be community and an intentional advancement of the kingdom of God.

Jesus did about everything by two’s. From Genesis to Revelation we see the Lord administrating things in two’s. I think He was on to something, “Two are better than one”, “where two or more are gathered”, “He sent them out, two by two”, etc.

Community is essential for accountability, fellowship, “sharpening”, remembrance, etc. Still can be accomplished with only two believers.

The Advancement of the Kingdom of God keeps the church growing and keeps things from being just another “accountability” group.

I think this could look a million different ways and is not limited to or defined by infrastructures, but by objectives. I think that “churches” by this simple def. are already happening under the umbrella of the church as we know it. Plus, most church started this way, a husband and wife, etc.

So here’s my rough rough def. in one sentence: A church is at least two Christ-followers committed to fellowship with each other and purposefully advancing the gospel message.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:56:09 +0000

or for a definition of what the church is NOT. I would read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:36:46 +0000

we are the church.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:06:40 +0000

I had to pause at this comment: “up-reach,in-reach, and out-reach”…

Church is made up of those three elements above, but I think it is in the “out-reach” that we “up-reach” and it is only as a result of the “up-reach” that we are allowed some sense of “in-reach”.

The Post-Karmic Stream: http://theburkholders.blogspot.com

By: chapmc

chapmc — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:03:12 +0000

When I think of a Biblical Church, I think of some core “marks” or “things” that a church does, according to the NT. Some of these are things that ONLY a church does. Some left off of my list might be more important to a community, but can be accomplished without a church. So, these marks would be a celebration of the Christ-instituted sacraments on a regular basis (baptism, Lord’s Supper), Preaching, and exercising church discipline - the hard part of discipleship. Of course these can’t be done without people focused on Christ, living by His grace - meaning we’ll naturally see worship, outreach, etc. I love technology and have used it extensively in ministry, but the sacrament part is the only thing that we really have to be physically present for - Just as Christ is present for us!

By: Pastorvinny

Pastorvinny — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:43:56 +0000

“Gathering” in relationship is absolutely the core value. In our attempts to do away with locations we cannot do away with relationships. I would add to the discussion that it certainly isn’t about a church building. But as has always been the case with we humans, gathering has locations, even if it is in virtual space. I sometimes think that a lot of post-modern folks are more concerned about de-locating than they are locating. I am sure this is over-reacting to buildings. Buildings aren’t our problem, but not relating well certainly is the problem. Some relate well online, some don’t. Nothing new about that problem in trying to be effective in communicating the gospel.

By: Bobby Gruenewald

Bobby Gruenewald — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:57:34 +0000

Mike,

I actually think that the list of things in your last comment are all possible with current technology. And interestingly, they are not always present when people physically gather in a “church” building.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:38:06 +0000

To add a bit more…

Part of the church Body is interdependence. Virtually I can experience, but am I experienced? I can see but am not seen, observe but am not known, taste but not contribute, hear but not testify.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:32:08 +0000

I think an underlying issue or question with “virtual” churches and their derivatives is beyond semantics of “church” and really about substance. What elements constitute a church experience? I think a majoriy of evangelicals would concur that wherever 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ there is a “church.” A consistent assembly of saints at a location with shared geography then becomes “the church that meets in Mike’s house in Chicago versus the house that meets in Pam’s house in Seattle.”

So we go online…where’s the “line” in “online” community? I visit great blogs (like this one!) and exchange ideas with other saints. Is this a church? By the definition of saints gathered together under the name of Jesus, sure. But does it qualify as community in the Acts 2, Hebrews 10:25, John 17, real relationship kind of way? Likely not. Even if we play hymns in the background and exchange IM prayers, it seems like it would be tapestries of a church, functions of gathering, but still missing something…

Isn’t part of what we’re poking at with the debate of “church” ultimately relational? Knowing and being full known as we seek to truly know and be known by the real God and make Him known to all men. I can maintain simulated intimacy and love with a brother I have known in person and now am separate from (as Paul did via letters), but that is facilitated by the origin of face-to-face relationship. Starting with and staying in a world of simulated relationship lacks potency, and that relational potency is part of the transformative ethos of a gathering of saints (i.e. “the church”).

There’s still something else, but that’s a thought at least…

By: Bill Easum

Bill Easum — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:59:10 +0000

Well I dont want to split hairs, but by place I meant a static location. So I guess I should have said a building, but then you can counter, “Well they met in homes and that is a building.” I think most people know what I mean by place- the type of institutional church building we call “church” so we can “go to church” Christians dont go to church, they are the church where ever they gather.

By: Pastorvinny

Pastorvinny — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:12:14 +0000

I am intrigued with Bill Easum’s comment that no where in scripture is the church linked to a place. It seems to me that this simply isn’t true. The place is the city in which it is worshiping or as he would say “two or three gathering”; thus Ephesus. Now maybe he meant a building for a place, but place is a lot broader than a building. A city-wide church is such a non-entity in our culture but it sure was the place in scripture. Maybe his focus was more on “institution” and not so much about place. Place is sure an issue with virtual churches. Or should I say, non-issue?

By: Greg Atkinson

Greg Atkinson — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:33:01 +0000

The Church is the Body of Christ. When “two or more” gather, there the Church is. There are local churches that are a part of the Church (capital “C”). Church happens in church buildings, theaters, schools, prisons, apartments, underground, tents, online and wherever members of the Body gather to lift up the Head (Christ).

By: Brad Huebert

Brad Huebert — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:43:36 +0000

I have to clarify. I don’t mean that there aren’t local expressions of THE church, and then of course, what do you call those gatherings? On further thought, I think the word “Churches” does come up. So I guess my point isn’t valid.

Huh.

By: Brad Huebert

Brad Huebert — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:41:13 +0000

I agree that the church has a “being” component, but we are the spiritual body of a God who DOES WHO HE SAYS HE IS.

Another thought: Maybe there’s no such thing as A (singular) church — only THE (collective) church. “THE church in Aquilla’s house.” “The church in Corinth.” Are there verses in the NT that use the phrase “A church?” I can’t think of any. Just like I really have a problem when pastor’s preach about their church, using words like “this body…” NO, there is ONE BODY (Eph 4).

THoughts?

By: riddle

riddle — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:26:49 +0000

bobby,
it will come as no surprise to you that I love this question you and driscoll are raising. it’s an good example of the theology we hold and how we live it out. for instance, when (as one of the commenters suggests) the church is a PLACE,then a building and space of permanence will likely be important. We live what we believe about the church, but often few leaders actually take the time to write a definition. Of course these folks do have a definition of church, but articulating it is the hard part. don’t know how clear I’m writing but there ya go.

church (to me)= is the people of God doing the business of God in the world.