Millard Erickson
points out that at “no point in the
history of Christian thought has the doctrine of the church received the direct
and complete attention which other doctrines have received.” He goes on to state that “the question of the nature of the church can
no longer be delayed, however.” In view of that, the church really is one
of the last ‘things’ – a final frontier of sorts.
The word
“church” itself is a loaded term, invoking strong emotions of scorn or love
depending on the how the individual understands of it. John Phillips expresses
the identity confusion prevalent today: “Most
people have a poor opinion of the church. If they think of it at all, they
think of the vast organized system of religion …” Phillips goes on
to identify that as “not the church but
Christendom”. People see the failures of Christendom and despise the
church. A popular song title, “Jesus I
love You but I Can’t Stand Your Wife” captures this sentiment. Terminology cannot be ignored in this area.
That being said,
‘invoking of emotions’ could be a much preferred alternative to blatant apathy
towards the church that permeates among some groups of post-moderns. The notion
that “I am spiritual but not religious” seems to be the fad (i.e.
‘religious’ meaning into organized/institutionalized religion).
So, back
to Millard - Could the question of the nature of church be delayed? After all, Millard does affirm, “The
church is not a fixed form, but a project, a continuing task”. I presume, that
if the nature of church is to be explored it should be from the point of
‘function’ and not ‘form’. The three biblical images given by Millard shed
light on this: The People of God, The Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy
Spirit. The first function of Church could speak of experiencing community, the
second – of expressing Christ’s compassion and the third, about encountering
God. Forms may vary greatly so let us be slow to pass judgement as we explore this enigma. With that I
conclude this stop at the CALTEX station.
umeng
umeng
Hi Yew Meng,
ReplyDeleteIndeed a fair reflection on the nature of the church. Good! Just to give a little perspective to what you have mentioned:
I believe the church needs to be a community that is guided by the scriptures, dependent on the Spirit, people are learning to become disciples of Jesus, incarnational rather than attractional, driven by the people of God and not driven by top-down leadership, people driven not program driven, practices the future, i.e. “Hope in Action”, interconnected and dependent on each other for formation and for mission, contextually counter-cultural.
(adapted from BI-VOCATIONAL CHURCH LEADERSHIP INSUBURBAN AMERICA - TODD HIESTAND)
WHAT IS THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH?
My Question in regards to this post modern community, can the church be separated from function and form?
If Yes/No, to what extend?
I won't comment much, but hope to add in thoughts. People hated the church because of it is being...too direct?
ReplyDeleteI recalled reading of a novel where the preacher called "the fornicators shall be burn in hell!" (paraphrased) I guess he was missing the point.
I like the last paragraph of 'function' and 'form'. Reminded me of a discussion I had with someone about the Holy Spirit.
Ever wonder why churches still withstand time after time? It is a body of Christ. Jesus' people shall be His vassal(function), for the glory of His kingdom. The church is where His work continues till Jesus returns.
It is good to talk about your faith and beliefs. I hope that you will address some of the questions raised by the "emergent" churches in your blog. Not to forget the issues of ecumenical movement and replacement theology (the Church is replacing Israel). Expecting good theological discussion in this blog.
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought into light that the church is actually a last 'thing'. where Jesus also say the gates of Hades will not prevail it. That no matter what form, it will advance and His Will can never and will never be thwarted or stopped. It's a reassuring thought.
ReplyDeleteIt is most unfortunate when the church has become a fixture, or a despised image, but what else is new? This has been the cycle for centuries. And the church has prevailed, reformed, and advanced.
The 'function over form' argument is valid. Yet in many ways, churches are defined by its form rather than the function. Which then begs the question, is form becoming the new function, and the original function fading into the shadows of the bright lights of this new form-function?
ReplyDeleteReplacement theology is an exciting concept. Can the 'church' replace the role of Israel as we approach the end? Depending on which interpretation of the book of Revelations, Israel does play a vital role in the end of this age. Yet to some, the church is the new Israel, not just the spiritual beneficiary of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the physical Neo Israel. So what then of the 'nation' Israel? A physical geographical location? A people group of ethnia? What role do they play in the end?
Anne did mention that the church has prevailed, reformed and advanced. To which I totally agree. But proper understanding of the role of this reformed, advanced, Gentile church must come to light in proper perspective of Israel, the original elect people of God.
One of the foremost NT Scholar, Gordon Fee writes, 'The early believers did not have buildings called "churches", they did not "go to church." They were the church, and at appointed times and places they assembled as the church.' It seems to me that function (or rather "identity") should always lead the way. Looks like "form" is subjected to different society/culture/era. But how much has these two subjects being reversed and misunderstood nowadays? God help us...
ReplyDelete