The Bible Archive

“The way you’re sitting: you’re still not so sure about what I’m saying….”

“Well yes. I mean at first it sounded like you were making a very narrow distinction about what a local church is. Then you basically say all churches are crippled–.”

“Well most anyway. I can’t really prove all.”

“Fine, so most. But I think you’re ignoring some things like Christ says where two or three are gathered in my name that’s a church. So even if they’re messed up, the church is made up of people. That would mean any group of Christians is still a church. Even Campus Crusades.”

“Christ is talking about the matter of discipline and yes he’s there in the matter of bringing a charge against a sinning brother or sister but eventually he also says to bring the matter before the church—which, you’re right: is people. The local manifestation of the Universal Church, I’ll use the term Assembly, is defined by the goals and work (as I said before) but the boundary markers are seen by those seven points. Of course, assemblies might be weak on one or more of the markers but that doesn’t negate the legitimacy of their gathering. So yes, I’m both narrowing the definition and broadening it”

“Whatever Yoda…but you haven’t addressed my main concern. Is campus crusade a local church? Should they have a membership roster? Collect for the poor? Discipline each other?”

I wanted to illustrate the main point from my last post: that any gathering of Christians might still be an ekklesia albeit horribly crippled. Up front I wanted to make my point clearer—I think we’ve restricted the meaning of the Local Church to center around a building or a specific service but have ignored the goal and work of the Church as well as the boundary markers that define of what the Church looks like. In so doing, I think we’ve effectively divorced the markers of the ekklesia and have made them stand on their own apart from it

So when we look at Revelation1:20 we see that Christ is examining the lamp stands of seven churches. How much light are they giving? Where are they falling short in performing their task? At what point do these gathering of Christians stop being Churches?

This post serves as a repository of my Local Church series

1. What can we assume to know about the Church?
2. Are there any unspoken assumptions about the Church?
3. Why assume anything about the Church?
4. What is the Goal of the Church?
5. What is the Work of the Church?
6. What does the local church look like?
7. Does a failing local church still count?
8. Are there any examples of failing yet actual local churches?
9. Interlude Questions: So what about para-church organizations?
10. What is Rey suggesting?

Up at The Limitless blog.

Before the Debate
We’re going to see some annoying banter no doubt: like Obama’s 8 houses comment and I have a feeling McCain has a response (probably in regards to Obama’s ridiculously priced house). McCain often does a good job with in your face sincerity but Obama does a good job of quick thinking on his toes which I think will be problematic (since he often answers without answering and McCain often fires from the hip leaving his comments open to real examination).

I have a feeling Obama will win but not on substance, rather on quick verbal skills and the mutant ability to turn self into rubber and others into glue.

As for the Bailout, all Obama is going to do is say how the Reps were denying the additions to the bailout package that would benefit a wider category than the rich companies with the deep pockets and the bad fiscal responsibility. Probably will use it as a starting point for some renewed (and likely potentially dangerous) renewed regulation. Let’s see how close I was:

Go check it out.

You’re sitting at a dinner table and the conversation takes a left at Albuquerque when you know it should’ve gone right. The person across from you notices that you ordered the Grilled Chicken and a shadow darkened their normally bright face. With your fork poised to insert a juicy piece of said chicken into your mouth you feel it necessary to ask your table mate what’s wrong. Their answer is as follows: “Christians can’t eat chicken. To be a true believer, one must not eat chicken.” What do you do with that? Do you let it slide as a moral issue that falls under the purview of liberty and bearing with weakness of the weak or not?

While looking at the New Testament Church I started off with a few basic assumptions (the Church consists of People, the Church’s existence is based on specific historical requirements and the Church’s leadership is divine). Flowing from these assumptions I pointed out a goal of the Church tied directly to the purpose of the sent Holy Spirit (firstly to edify the Church by teaching and comforting and secondly to convict the World of sin, righteousness and judgment).

As such, I specified seven markers which outlined the boundaries of the Church: (1) the Lord’s Supper, (2) baptizing disciples, (3) loving one another, (4) disciplining its own members, (5) pure worship practices, (6) pure moral practices and (7) preaching the Word. The question now arises: can a church (small c) count as such if it fails in any of these seven boundary markers?

Take 15 minutes. Go read this. Also read the comments. Honestly, you don’t have to participate but Jeremy does an excellent job of thinking through the issues as do his commenters.

Barack Obama has basically declared himself incompetent to make any judgments on one of the key issues of our day, and I have to say that I agree with him. The statements he’s been making show that he’s either hopelessly ignorant on some very important policy matters or deliberately contradicting himself in order to pretend to two opposing groups that he’s on both their sides. That means he probably should have a job where these issues really are above his pay grade. There are a lot of such jobs. Unfortunately for him, the job of U.S. President (not to mention U.S. Senator, Illinois State Senator, or constitutional law professor) would not be in the list.

Once upon a time, folk would stand in a circle, before an audience, and debate things. No, not Jerry Springer. I’m talking about the Old Days before TV. To establish the grounds for the debate the two folk arguing would first state what they’re arguing for (or against) and then proceed with given statements.

The point they were arguing for (or against) was called The Question. Each of the givens would be the premises which the debater would use as a starting point for his argument.

As my parents got older they started putting away the salt from the table. It wasn’t that they didn’t like the taste it’s that they realized that too much of it was not good for them. They were realizing it was coming out all the time and that their blood pressure was steadily rising. But what I don’t think they noticed is that when they put it away they would slowly, imperceptibly miss it—and even need it back in their bodies. The rise of Calvinism and Charismatic Continuism seems to be doing the same thing.

Someone, either Billy Graham or John MacArthur (can’t remember which) said that “we’ve all milked from the Plymouth Brethren Cow”. Too often people raise the banner of the Plymouth Brethren as a byword to be hissed at because of the damage that has been or is being done (ie: Aleister Crowly, Brian Mclaren, pop-Left-Behindism, etc.). Anyway, I wanted to underline the rich culture found in the Brethren Movement and the way it has benefited the corporate Body of Christ to try to regain some balance. The Brethren Movement was sort of like the Emergents, it wasn’t defined by any denomination and it spread from the ground up. But in stark contrast, the Plymouth Brethren was a Back to the Gospel movement focused on the truth of the Gospel by studying the Bible, adherence to the Lord’s Supper, and preaching the Word to as many as possible. The Movement in English speaking countries has greatly diminished although places like India have seen tremendous growth.

What I’ll do for these features is quote Wikipedia or something similar and link to some good reading, either about them or by them..

Today’s feature: F.F.Bruce. Yeah, He was one of us.

Enjoy the Christian Carnival at Thinking Christian.

Firefox is fast, plays nicely with the web, and is decent with your computer resources. The new version ( Firefox 3) is even better, offering a ton of stuff like an address bar that knows what you’re thinking (or so it seems like it sometimes). But that’s not why Firefox is probably the best browser ever: the perks are in the add-ons.

Last night at chapel, I was listening to the brother expound on the resurrection of Christ and the appearance to Mary. The preaching sparked a thought that I had had in the past (and of course, which has been discussed to death in commentaries) but I wanted to put down some views on paper. Why did Christ tell Mary not to touch Him when later on in John 20 He’s telling Thomas to touch Him?