Is it the building? Is it the leader? Is it the people? Is it the community efforts? What really is a Church?
I know that Christ said, For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. So what about when I'm all alone? Why isn't that a Church too. What if I'm standing alone at the altar of a well-known cathedral and praying earnestly? I guess that's not really a Church... but why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Word also states that we shouldn't forsake the company of other believers.
When we tell someone that "our church meets down at that building on the corner," we are talking about the group of people who come together to worship. So, a church is a flock, with a shepherd.
You by yourself can have a devotional, a quiet time, a serious heart-to-heart with The Man Upstairs, but I don't think by most definitions can you consider an individual a "church."
Nice response!
So what is it about gathering together with other people in faith that is different than solitary faith? Both are important, obviously, and they share similar actions and outcomes.
Maybe there's another way to ask the underlying question: What do you get out of going to gatherings of two or three (or more?) people?
Also, I know some Gatherings (can I capitalize that without being precocious?) where everyone worships, but nobody is leading. Is that a "Church" as well? Does there have to be an earthly shepherd in attendance for the quorum to be achieved?
I think the biggest thing you get out of it is accountability. The mutual accountability found in a church body helps keep from operate on "it feels right to me," and hopefully points individuals back to Scripture for guidance and a "litmus test" for the things we are saying and doing. It's really easy to talk ourselves into things. It's harder to do when people are there to call BS if necessary.
I think Gatherings should be a part of a church, but not the sole focus. Periods of worship are essential, but if that's all you ever do, it's all frosting and no meat.
Many small groups, and some churches, operate on consensus, and that can work perhaps for small groups. But you run the risk of the blind leading the blind sometimes, I think.
Jesus often talked about his "flock", or his followers. For there to be followers, there has to be a leader. The Bible places a unique burden and mandate on Pastors, because of the criticality of such a position.
I've always puzzled about why so many mainstream denominations insist that their leaders switch places every so often. I know it keeps some bad things from happening, but it also keeps some really good things from continuing.
I can understand that statistically there are typically only a few leaders who are truly gifted and rotating them around means allowing them to reach the largest possible audience, but that policy also waters down their effectiveness (IMO) and denies them a sense of permanency which (I would argue) reduces their overall positive impact.
Great point. Losing a good pastor is something like losing a father. It takes a congregation a while to recover, especiially if the pastor was deeply involved and cared about.
The mega-church idea of leadership "teams" of pastors who rotate through services, seems a little production-line to me.
Sure, it may help reduce pastor "burn-out," but having a different McPastor and fries every Sunday also reduces the connection a person feels to a church.
It can also build factionalism, where certain people will only show up when they know their "favorite" pastor is preaching, etc.
Build I'm kinda old-school that way...
Post a Comment