What the Church Is Not

[lindenbooks]

"What the Church Is Not" is an essay I wrote mainly for those who have been hurt by religion, and I offer as a free download at my website.

God bless!

[Ransom v. Unman]

I was actually just about to reply, but then saw everything gone!

I thought we were going to have a discussion about what church isn't...

On the other hand, a simple advertisement (as this almost appears to be) is in fact a TOS violation.

[lindenbooks]

I know, and I'm sorry Ransom v. Unman -- here's the deal...I was in writing mode the past three weeks as I wrote my essay, "What the Church Is Not"...BUT, my main mode is intercession. Now that I've finished the essay, I thought I could discuss it, but I feel myself going back into intercession mode. If this doesn't sound like it makes a lick of sense, I apologize, but I thought I should explain, especially since it seems I have violated TOS with my hyper-sensitivity!

If, however, you'd still like to discuss it, I'm game. It just seems that people (I've never discussed anything with you personally before, so I'm not pointing at you) on forums tend to be very out-spoken in ways that they wouldn't be if we all just sat down for coffee together, for example. Don't you think?

[lindenbooks]

So anyway, there's my wound-licking excuse (above) for deleting my first post, and coming this close to violating TOS. NOW, since you've expressed an interest in discussing this, here's something from my essay:

Christianity today needs to come out of its own culture. We are perceived in the world as people who look funny, talk funny and are easily offended. What should offend the sinner is not our representation of Christ, but the message of Christ against sin. If you and I offend because we can’t look on, listen to or discuss anything that doesn’t come directly from the pulpit or from a Christian bookstore, we’re useless. We’re salt that’s lost its savor.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Well, I agree...

Sadly, the church seems to be the stumbling block.

What would you propose for us to do to get the flavour back?

................

Something to start with in my mind is to recognise that the church is not...

...it's set of programmes.

[lindenbooks]

In Matthew 6:19-21, where Jesus talks about where we should and shouldn't store up our treasures, he was talking of the sins of the religious.

It's one thing to enjoy the culture we're a part of, where we feel we fit, but another to represent our culture as Christianity. That's wrong; Christ Himself is outside of all time, culture and dispensation.

We each need to be genuine as individual Christians, but not make our culture our witness. For example, back when I was in high school there was a girl who was obviously Pentecostal Holiness by denomination, but she didn't preach that, nor did she judge me, a girl who was practicably raised next door to a make-up factory! ; ) She was simply uniquely herself as a Christian--but that wasn't what she expressed; by her humility she expressed the love of Christ; she wasn't a walking advertisement for her church.

It's one of the things I admire about the Amish, to use another example; they are admirable in their productivity, their piety and hard work, but they don't proselytize; they know that their culture is bounded.

The evangelical community in many ways has become bounded by its look and operation. There's nothing wrong with being a part of a culture if you're honest about it; admit that the way your church does things isn't Christianity personified, it's just the way you like to express your faith. We need to lose the arrogance. We need to be genuine, but we need to represent CHRIST, not our church if we want to make a difference in this world.

[Rebecca]

We need to be genuine, but we need to represent CHRIST, not our church if we want to make a difference in this world.

Wow. I completely agree with this statement. The church has become a building and an institution--we've missed the whole point.

[lynnmosher]

Coming out of a denominational church many years ago and joining a non-denominational one, I realized how ingrained the denomination had been within me and not Christ. Though our church now is certainly not perfect, I am so thankful to the Lord for leading us there. I always wonder what kind of letter Paul would write to the church today!

[lindenbooks]

Hi, Rebecca, it's nice to "talk" with you again!:) And hi, to you, too, Lynn!

In my essay, this is what I assert; the church with a small "c" isn't the body of Christ; the bride universal, not at ALL. It's a sub-culture. Martin Luther opposed the political mess the church had become during his time, and we all see clearly what he was dealing with, through the lens of history. Today, I think many do actually understand that we're dealing with something similar, but there is a lot of fear.

I've stood for Christ in both the world and the religious culture, and I have found the same level of oppostion from both. In the first case, the world, I've been rebuffed because of ignorance; the latter case, the religious culture, I've been rebuffed by anger. The ignorance I can deal with, the anger is tougher because it's a secondary emotion. At the root of it is fear.

I'll say it: you don't have to go to church to be saved. When Jesus said, "It is finished," He made an emphatic statement. Going to church, then, should be something that an individual believer considers a privilege. To socialize with other believers is a good feeling, but the best things don't always happen at church. And I'm speaking regarding those that are grounded Christians themselves. For new believers, or, those who are on their way, I don't think in many cases they are strong enough for the church culture, being what it is; political in many instances.

Paul was sent to one person, to be discipled by him for a long period of time before he ever went out. I disciple people this way; people the Lord has brought to me that the church spit out. I discipled an older gentleman for four years that lived next door to us, until he and his wife moved to a new neighborhood, and he is such a sweet lover of Jesus. I am currently discipling a woman I met on the internet, who lives in Australia. It's been two and a half years now.

Discipleship needs to be personal. The church with a small "c" doesn't do this, nor should we expect it to; it's about us, the body of Christ; the bride universal--you and me!

[Keith Wallis]

Discipleship needs to be personalAmen.

My biggest problem is that the 'ecclesia' (the local expression of the body of Christ) seems to be on the wane as folk travel away from their communities to bigger/livelier/trendier centres of worship. This (to my mind) is salt going into the salt pots and lights illuminating the gaudy instead of lighting the street. Local churches are ever likely to lose their way when their constituency is robbed.

[lindenbooks]

Hi, Keith--that's an interesting perspective. However, one of the points stated in my essay is that "Christ is outside of all time, culture and dispensation." Although the first gentleman I mentioned lived next door to me, you know that Carol, who lives in Australia, being the second, is my "neighbor," too, for the way God brought her into my life. I guess I'm saying it rather falls under the category, "who is my neighbor?"

But directly to what you're saying, "going into the salt pots and illuminating the gaudy"--oh, boy, do I agree with that! That's the MIND-SET of modern religion that is disturbing, "hauling water to the sea."

And one more point...in civilized society, there is a church on every corner. But that's a church with a small "c." What if, just what if, there is no real body of Christ in operation near you? In other words, what if the local landscape is spirititually dry, dry, dry? I've seen areas like this, I truly have. In this case, "ecclesia" must by necessity be "wait on the Lord," and then prayerfully, "two or three".

[Derby]

The traditional view I believe is that the marks of the Church are unity, holiness and Biblical teaching.
I am not a Roman Catholic but understand that the Second Vatican Council sees the Church primarily as the People of God.
This is beyond mere denominations.

I wondered if a non-denominational church can remain as such - especially if it becomes an association of such churches - and especially if it has a statement of belief.
Does it become the Non-Denominational denomination?
The group of Christians that started the Methodist denomination did not want to do this.
The Protestant groups at times have seemed more susceptible to fracture than Roman or Eastern groups.

[lindenbooks]

I agree, derby. As my son and I were discussing this morning, we get into trouble when we think of the "collective," as far as Christian teaching is concerned. When God says, "My people," He knows the numbers of hairs on each individual's head. When we as human beings say "people," we blur individual personalities and needs. This is the danger.

Denominationalism and non-denominationalism aren't that far apart; they involve organized groups of people. Either way, the individual is in danger of becoming lost in the collective, whether a Catholic or a branched off Protestant faith, otherwise known as non-denominational. Groups are groups.

I see no harm whatsoever in ritualistic religion, as long as the individual is kept sight of. God is always mindful of the individual. The only danger of religion is not rituals or no rituals, it's losing sight of what it's all for in the first place: to draw a heart to its Maker. It's why Jesus said, "Man wasn't created for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was created for man."

Human beings as a collective tend to agree most readily on putting the cart before the horse, why this is the case I can't say; why does our logic go right out the window when we organize? Sometimes God has to do what He did with the tower of Babel in our little attempts to make things "better" for everyone. But the Holy Spirit is faithful to call out those hearts that will listen despite the status quo.

[Tamera]

My problem with the church is in some places it has become a business with a marketable product - Jesus. Excellance in ministry has become a catch phrase for professional ministry. Ministers choose which church to pastor at based on what's best for their careers, not the leading of the Holy Spirit. And the congregation runs around trying to prove who's more spiritual by following a bunch of legalistic Christian fads and man made rules. For me, the church used to be a safe place for believers to fellowship. I no longer feel that way. But I wish I did. Okay, done venting.

[Derby]

When Jesus said 'make disciples of all nations', did he know that we would make a mess of it?

This post lacks some coherence but that probably reflects my uncertainty on some points.

Firstly, regarding the revelation of Jesus as Messiah to people; according to John the apostle, John the Baptist seems to be the first to have this revelation [John 1.29-37]. He is overheard by Andrew and a second disciple [John?], and Andrew tells his brother Simon. But Matthew records that Jesus said to Simon, ‘this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father’. Did Jesus realise that Andrew had told him but meant that the same revelation to an individual is always from the Father? Or was Simon very special? [Mark and Luke do not record this incident].

Simon is renamed Peter, meaning rock. Why? The passage ‘whatever you loose…’ was said to all the disciples [Matthew 18.15-20], not just to Peter. But ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ seems to be said only to Peter, unless the word ‘you’ is plural in the original. What does this phrase mean and what MIGHT it mean about Peter?

When Jesus said ‘you are Peter’ was it just a verbally dramatic reply to ‘you are the Christ’? Jesus continues ‘and on this rock I will build my church’ – MY church, not Peters. Could Jesus really have been referring to an organisation that is now the largest Christian denomination and has existed for 2000 years? Can one say that history shows that this is what he anticipated?

But Christ is the Rock [1 Corinthians 10.4], Christ is the Living Stone [1 Peter 2.4-12]. In the Great Commission [Matthew 28.16-20] ‘all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me’, Jesus does not seem to be relinquishing his position to a human organisation.

In 1302 Boniface VIII said ‘We declare, proclaim and define that it is absolutely necessary that every human creature should be subject to the Roman Pontiff’. But the Second Vatican Council, 1962-5, said that the Church is the people of God. Also it said that many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the Church [meaning outside the Roman church?]. To go much further in recognising the validity of other denominations; to reject the statement of Boniface VIII; would perhaps mean rejecting the dogma of Infallibility of the Pope, made in the First Vatican Council of 1870. That council met at a time of extreme political and physical pressure on the church.

Just before Jesus, the Son of God, sacrificed himself, he prayed to his Father.
One of the things he prayed for was that all believers be one [John 17.21].
It was very important to him.
And he knew what was in man [John 2.23-25].
Jesus must have realised that groups of believers would form organisations, just as the Jewish faith had. What would he say to today’s scene?

[lindenbooks]

I hear ya, Tamera.

And Derby, what a wonderfully thoughtful post. I agree that this post lacks coherence. In my opinion, it's because of the subject altogether.

It frustrates me to no end; I wish I could write the thoughts of my heart more clearly....So many people that I would get along with very well otherwise retract whenever I speak openly on this topic. I feel like the child in "The Emperors New Clothes."

Basically, organized religion is flawed. We all agree on that, I'm sure. I don't have a bone to pick with religion. I know some very religious people who are very, very happy with what they practice. My bone to pick is with those that insist that they way they practice their faith is God's way for everyone. These people are absolutely certain that the way their church structures services and ministries is the only guarantee that salvation will "work." But I will NOT flinch: the blood of Jesus is the ONLY thing that puts us in right standing with God. All the rest is up to personal interpretation. I hate to repeat this, but, "if it makes you happy, go for it," otherwise, leave every other heart for the Spirit of God to work in.

I started this thread with fear and trembling, not before God, but before man. And I think this is always the rub. I love Jesus with all my heart, I adore the Holy Spirit and crave His work in my life, and I highly, highly esteem the inspiration of the word of God, and the encouragement it feeds my personal heart. HOWEVER, the organized church is not my personal concern, not at all. I love God's people, and if they are so blessed to attend a loving, spirit-filled assembly of any denomination, including no denomination, then wonderful! That kind of sense of community is very fulfilling.

Yet the Church, the body of Christ, goes beyond organization and sense of community. It is a mystical body, and not one of us is ever going to "peg" it. I wrote my essay because some people, frankly, simply don't love Jesus enough yet to throw the bath water out and keep the baby. I present the raw, worst case scenario expectations of people towards an organization that they assume respresents God Himself. No organization can represent God, only people, blood bought people who know it (receive Christ, love Him/obey Him), can represent God. And compared to this, the organization is out in the cold as far as I'm concerned. Nothing warms my heart like the fellowship of the Spirit. I believe this is what people need, and often it can't be found within an organization. Whether yes or no, it must be an individual conviction.

[Derby]

Quote
“Basically, organized religion is flawed. We all agree on that, I'm sure.”

There are certainly flaws in organized religion. Perhaps it is flawed because groups are sub-sets of humanity, they can be divisive, whether they are religious groups or not.
Organisations had to arise as the Church grew; the beginnings of this are seen in the New Testament. Churches were planted and leaders arose. Scopes of duties were defined. Care projects and missions were organized. Orthodox belief was defined.
Could the Church be just one organization?
History seems to show that it cannot, people are always disagreeing with each other.

Quote;
“some people, frankly, simply don't love Jesus enough yet to throw the bath water out and keep the baby.”

This may be true for a minority but could be unfair to most. Many people take on the attitudes of their teachers. If they are not taught tolerance of other denominations then the problem will persist, even though they love the Lord.

Quote:
“I love God's people, and if they are so blessed to attend a loving, spirit-filled assembly of any denomination, including no denomination, then wonderful! That kind of sense of community is very fulfilling.”

This is indeed the ideal of the local Church.

[lindenbooks]

Well, it's simply my calling as a gleaner, in other words, to pick up what has been missed. I can't relate to the majority, God hasn't engineered my life that way. In my forty-four years on this earth God has brought the broken into my pathway, and for these, the healthy status quo doesn't exist. Yes, we all want a loving sense of community; a local church. But I've learned that not everyone has access to one. There is a lot of ugliness out there; wolves in sheep's clothing. For all the beauty, however, which I experience myself in God-given fellowship, there are inexpressible wounds inflicted by organized religion; people who parade themselves as spokespeople for God, but they are not. These types of people and groups will never cease to organize and even flourish for a time on this side of things, and as a result, many people, even if only the minority, will ever be wounded. I am only concerned for these.

[ProfessorAlan]

Is it "organized religion" that is the problem, or the fallen men and women that organize it?

I am not convinced that "disorganized religion" is the answer.

[lindenbooks]

You are right, Prof. I think in trying to skirt giving specific examples, my point in starting this thread, in writing my essay, is not clear. For example, we know a pastor here in our town that looks right, sounds right on every score. But there is a spirit about him that is dangerous. (I only use him as a specific example; he represents scores of other church leaders I've known of in my life.) Seeking the approval of the church board above all else, he easily overlooks particular needs in his assembly, things that intimidate him, yet he keeps his squeaky clean persona without really ministering to anyone that needs ministering to. We've been personally acquainted with members of his assembly, so we know this to be true. Sadly, it seems to be the status quo in this little town the Lord moved us to. So many leaders in churches filling the bill as far as their persona, but there is very little outreach or real ministry going on.

I will leave this here, I could write more, but I don't know if I've been communicating here at all or not. We've become acquainted with many people that have been burned because of the lack of true ministry. My desire is to minister to their brokenness by pointing hard at Jesus, away from men. The organization has made these men proud; they have a group of people behind them, therefore, they act as if they don't need the Spirit. Yes, it is "the fallen men and women that organize it" that are the problem, but to them, the organization is equivalent to God Himself, and this is what hurts the weak.