the emerging church...

[Albion]

Ahh so when you say worship you mean the Lord's Supper? I did in fact recognize it in that verse.

No. Corporate worship can take the form of the Lord's Supper and also Morning Prayer or whatever the particular church calls it.

You raised the question of whether the Bible teaches that we need to come together and do it, as opposed to writing a poem by yourself, etc. You asked for Bible backing.

In reply, I cited several verses that show the Bible teaching that people ought to come together to do what I have called "corporate worship," i.e. a worship service such as most churches engage in weekly. bbGrey outlined one such when telling me what one Emerging Church does.

Only one of those verses describes a worship service that apparently does include the Lord's Supper. That doesn't mean to me that Morning Prayer is not a corporate worship service. But it shows the corporate nature of worship that the New Testament church engaged in. Most churches have Communion on some Sundays but not others.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Eating a curry with mates is communion.
A beer down the pub is worship.

Why must christianity be riddled with dualism?

 

[Albion]

Eating a curry with mates is communion.
A beer down the pub is worship.

Why must christianity be riddled with dualism?

It's not. But some words have more than one meaning.

 

[Sleaker]

You raised the question of whether the Bible teaches that we need to come together and do it, as opposed to writing a poem by yourself, etc. You asked for Bible backing.

Oooh no my question was about whether the bible teaches to Come together and 'worship' in the sense that we do today. And I haven't seen any verses that directly supports simply coming together and singing a bunch of songs, rather the focus was on taking communion for the most part. And I was just putting a question out there on why we seem to sidestep this.

 

[Albion]

Oooh no my question was about whether the bible teaches to Come together and 'worship' in the sense that we do today.

"In the sense that we do today?" I'd say that, yes, it is essentially the same. Of course they didn't have pews and electricity, but the basics of the service survive.

However, what I said was: "where people come together for worship, we are talking about corporate worship, and writing a poem or viewing art is not that."

To which you replied: "Ahhh, ok, gotcha. That clears some things up then which verse is that in for a biblical reference? Something about not forsaking the fellowship? or Gathering together.Cause I'm not so certain about it being in the bible so much as it being instated by men as a good thing, which I don't disagree with."

That was the conversation, and I responded with a number of verses showing, from the Bible, the coming together of believers for worship.

And I haven't seen any verses that directly supports simply coming together and singing a bunch of songs,

I don't know any churches of today that DO do this.

rather the focus was on taking communion for the most part. And I was just putting a question out there on why we seem to sidestep this.

Who sidesteps it? It's what most churches do more or less regularly, although I don't know of any which consider a prayer service minus Communion not to be a legitimate worship service OR, for that matter, any that consider isolated meditation to be an equivalent practice. As for what the Emerging/Emergent Church does, I've been told both that there is an attempt to return to "ancient liturgies" and that no liturgy is involved, so I don't at this moment know what the EC does or favors on this matter.

 

[Sleaker]

Who sidesteps it? It's what most churches do more or less regularly, although I don't know of any which consider a prayer service minus Communion not to be a legitimate worship service OR, for that matter, any that consider isolated meditation to be an equivalent practice. As for what the Emerging/Emergent Church does, I've been told both that there is an attempt to return to "ancient liturgies" and that no liturgy is involved, so I don't at this moment know what the EC does or favors on this matter.

Sidestep: Was referring to the church as a whole.

Ahh ok here comes the heart of the issue that I think has been bugging me the whole time: If the point is to come together for corporate worship, then why do you view Communion as a form of that? In my experience in churches communion is a 'personal' time where we go grab bread and juice and then sit back in our seat while the whole church individually goes before God. Maybe this is why I have things set in my mind like I do. The few times that I have taken communion in more of a group setting such as what Jesus did in the upper room were either when I led it with a small group, or when we have taken it in the house church.

What I'm getting at, is how is this different than say, meditating on something during a worship service?

 

[Albion]

Sidestep: Was referring to the church as a whole.

How can we define "church as a whole?" Most Christians worship in churches where communion is a feature. If we want to concentrate on those that don't, we surely are not talking about the "church as a whole."

Ahh ok here comes the heart of the issue that I think has been bugging me the whole time: If the point is to come together for corporate worship, then why do you view Communion as a form of that?

Why wouldn't I, given the the New Testament describes this kind of worship and Christ seems to have commanded it to be observed? But also, every Commmunion service includes communal prayers, private prayers, readings from scripture, meditating, singing (usually)--IOW all the other elements that are found in services without Communion.

In my experience in churches communion is a 'personal' time where we go grab bread and juice and then sit back in our seat while the whole church individually goes before God. Maybe this is why I have things set in my mind like I do. The few times that I have taken communion in more of a group setting such as what Jesus did in the upper room were either when I led it with a small group, or when we have taken it in the house church.

I agree that that explains it.

What I'm getting at, is how is this different than say, meditating on something during a worship service?

It includes all the other elements of corporate worship that simply meditating omits.

 

[Sleaker]

Why wouldn't I, given the the New Testament describes this kind of worship and Christ seems to have commanded it to be observed? But also, every Commmunion service includes communal prayers, private prayers, readings from scripture, meditating, singing (usually)--IOW all the other elements that are found in services without Communion.

The holding factor in my believing this, is that I don't see the word 'worship' mentioned in scripture. I see the words ' Lords Supper', 'Communion', Cry Out (Also Prayer) and Preaching (including 'Apostles Doctrine') mentioned in scripture as things to do when you gather a group of believers. This is why I am wondering what you mean when you say worship because I have in fact not found one of those versus to specifically say worship. But rather describe different unifying activities (Taking Communion, Praying Together, Laying on of Hands, Preaching/Teaching, Prophecy, Words of Edification).

 

[Albion]

The holding factor in my believing this, is that I don't see the word 'worship' mentioned in scripture. I see the words ' Lords Supper', 'Communion', Cry Out (Also Prayer) and Preaching (including 'Apostles Doctrine') mentioned in scripture as things to do when you gather a group of believers. This is why I am wondering what you mean when you say worship because I have in fact not found one of those versus to specifically say worship.

I gave you those verses when you asked for Biblical evidence of "coming together" as opposed to staying by oneself and writing a poem, etc.

If we specifically address the issue of corporate worship, as though we are to come together but we don't know what we are to do when assembled (?)--

I'd respond by pointing out that "worship" is described and recommended in many places in the Bible. And that the word itself is used repeatedly. For example, Psalms 5:7, Psalms 95:6, Psalms 97:7, Psalms 99:5, Psalms 138:2, Psalms 138:7, John 4:24, Luke 4:8, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelation 15:4. You noted that Communion, prayer, and preaching are in the Bible as what the early Christians did--together.

For myself, I don't see any way to deny that the Christian idea is to worship together and to have these elements be part of that worship (which is not to say that an individual cannot engage in private acts that constitute a kind of worship in addition to corporate worship).

 

[Sleaker]

Mm yes that does show worship in the bible, what I'm wondering about is where it shows worshiping specifically as a group besides in Revalations where all the host are present singing of God's glory, that's the only one I could think of myself. Most of the verses can be seen as an imperative for everyone to worship God, but not necessarily all together, or in a gathering.

On a related topic: What would you define as corporate worship?

 

[Albion]

Mm yes that does show worship in the bible, what I'm wondering about is where it shows worshiping specifically as a group besides in Revalations where all the host are present singing of God's glory, that's the only one I could think of myself. Most of the verses can be seen as an imperative for everyone to worship God, but not necessarily all together, or in a gathering.

We've already dealt with verses that DO speak of coming together, as opposed to an imperative for worship per se. For example, there's the NT passage that describes the coming together for breaking bread and in which Paul preached until late into the night. Many others citede speak of WE or ALL OF US or NATIONS engaged in worship. Theoretically, I suppose it could be said that this means one at a time, but there is no reason to conclude that, whereas we know that the Hebrews worshipped together in the houses of worship.

On a related topic: What would you define as corporate worship?

Two or three together or more engaging in praise, petition, instruction and, perhaps, the Lord's Supper (in the Christian context).

 

[Sleaker]

We've already dealt with verses that DO speak of coming together, as opposed to an imperative for worship per se. For example, there's the NT passage that describes the coming together for breaking bread and in which Paul preached until late into the night. Many others citede speak of WE or ALL OF US or NATIONS engaged in worship. Theoretically, I suppose it could be said that this means one at a time, but there is no reason to conclude that, whereas we know that the Hebrews worshipped together in the houses of worship.

Ahh but what I'm saying is these activities are not directly stated as being 'worship' Yes it says to come together, but it doesn't say that this is worship. Yes it says to preach, but it doesn't say it is worship. I see it says to take the Lord's supper, but scripture doesn't say that this is worship. This is where the disconnect happens in my mind. If we are to suggest that preaching or teaching is worship, or taking the Lord's supper, or really anything we do as a body. What says that anything else we do as a group is not worship?

And this is why I return to my suggestion earlier that worship as I see it is a way of life rather than simply any simple act. And when we come together in fellowship, anything we do can be said to be 'corporate worship'

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

Ooh it just reminded of Romans 12:1-3 EDIT: mixed up the verse it says to present ourselves Holy and Acceptable, reminder to self to read beforehand... haha

Worship as I've looked up in the greek and hebrew means a multitude of things (To draw near, to lick like a dog before a master, to prostrate, fall down, make to stoop, to revere/adore, to honour, do service, respect, support, show piety)

I hope I'm not making you frustrated at all I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and for some reason it's not clicking in my mind.

 

[Albion]

Ahh but what I'm saying is these activities are not directly stated as being 'worship' Yes it says to come together, but it doesn't say that this is worship.

Sure it does. Several of the verses mentioned include the word worship, which you were looking for, with actions.

Yes it says to preach, but it doesn't say it is worship. I see it says to take the Lord's supper, but scripture doesn't say that this is worship.

But we have the Lord's Supper and preaching going on back to back or at the same time, so how reasonable is it to say that one or the other doesn't have anything to do with the other?

If we are to suggest that preaching or teaching is worship, or taking the Lord's supper, or really anything we do as a body. What says that anything else we do as a group is not worship?

What else IS described as worship? It seems to me that you are splitting the finest of hairs in order to separate worship itself from elements of worship as described in scripture and history, and yet you feel at east speculating on a worship practice that has NO Bible verse to support it as being worship.

And this is why I return to my suggestion earlier that worship as I see it is a way of life rather than simply any simple act.

It's always hard to argue against "I think it should be...."

My usual posture in such instances is to say, "Does the Bible direct us one way or the other?" That's the way I approach any doctrinal or worship matter, and of course, that's a common response that any product of the Reformation would likely offer.

Ooh it just reminded of Romans 12:1-3 EDIT: mixed up the verse it says to present ourselves Holy and Acceptable, reminder to self to read beforehand... haha

This answer may be somewhat off the main subject, but that sacrifice has always long been included in the wording of the Lord's Supper worship service, at least in the Anglican churches of my own background.

Worship as I've looked up in the greek and hebrew means a multitude of things (To draw near, to lick like a dog before a master, to prostrate, fall down, make to stoop, to revere/adore, to honour, do service, respect, support, show piety)

I'd call those examples of kinds of worship acts, not a definition of worship itself. Of course, we've already decided that there is such a thing as engaging in a worshipful action apart from corporate worship.

I hope I'm not making you frustrated at all I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and for some reason it's not clicking in my mind.

It may be that we can't get both of us on the same wavelength. If so, that's just the way it is. But I am familiar with a wide range of Christian worship styles, and I think you are drawing from a non-liturgical experience. That makes it hard when I say that the churches have always done this, and you don't have frame of reference. For all of that, it doesn't make anyone wrong, exactly, but it does still mean that I don't know what the Emerging Church's view is as opposed to what bbGrey says and what you have said in another vein from that.

 

[Albion]

Sleaker,

One thing I should not let get lost in the middle of this discussion is this--

I do have a lot of agreement with and sympathy for your general approach to church matters and worship. Not every item that has come up, but the essential concept. This probably didn't come through in my posts at all, and you see me as a strict traditionalist.

In truth, however, that isn't quite so. But you posed a series of questions that I tried to answer, and answering them necessarily took the path of supporting the Biblical precepts that organised religion points to.

No, I think we are stuck with the Bible speaking of corporate worship. And there's no getting around what corporate worship has been in Church/ Christian history. And moreover we are stuck (IMO) with the Bible telling us that the Lord's Supper was observed from early times, and that praying and singing and so on are part of worship.

What I think, although I may not be able to make this as clear as I'd like, is that for us to detach ourselves from ordinary church-going and yet be still in step with the Bible (which I don't think we can sidestep in good conscience) we have to have another justification. That has to be one which recognizes the legitimacy of traditional Christian worship but at the same time explains departing from it.

Some theologians and teachers have suggested that the Church Age was what Jesus inaugurated...but that now it has run its course. It did not exist in order to go on forever, not any more than the Hebrew Church, which admittedly was God's own at one time, was supposed by him NOT to reach its culmination with Christ.

What was the purpose of the Church that Christ established? To spread the Gospel to the whole world, making disciples of men everywhere. If that has been accomplished in these times with Internet, TV, and everything else, what then? Can we say that the Church Age has ended and it is time for the believers to be preparing--in new ways perhaps--for the Second Coming, which Jesus also said would come after the commission he gave to the Apostles to evangelize and baptise throughout the world had been accomplished? A new way that is not traditional church-going, church leadership, and the usual forms of corporate worship?

 

[Sleaker]

Sleaker,

One thing I should not let get lost in the middle of this discussion is this--

I do have a lot of agreement with and sympathy for your general approach to church matters and worship. Not every item that has come up, but the essential concept. This probably didn't come through in my posts at all, and you see me as a strict traditionalist.

In truth, however, that isn't quite so. But you posed a series of questions that I tried to answer, and answering them necessarily took the path of supporting the Biblical precepts that organised religion points to.

No, I think we are stuck with the Bible speaking of corporate worship. And there's no getting around what corporate worship has been in Church/ Christian history. And moreover we are stuck (IMO) with the Bible telling us that the Lord's Supper was observed from early times, and that praying and singing and so on are part of worship.

What I think, although I may not be able to make this as clear as I'd like, is that for us to detach ourselves from ordinary church-going and yet be still in step with the Bible (which I don't think we can sidestep in good conscience) we have to have another justification. That has to be one which recognizes the legitimacy of traditional Christian worship but at the same time explains departing from it.

Some theologians and teachers have suggested that the Church Age was what Jesus inaugurated...but that now it has run its course. It did not exist in order to go on forever, not any more than the Hebrew Church, which admittedly was God's own at one time, was supposed by him NOT to reach its culmination with Christ.

What was the purpose of the Church that Christ established? To spread the Gospel to the whole world, making disciples of men everywhere. If that has been accomplished in these times with Internet, TV, and everything else, what then? Can we say that the Church Age has ended and it is time for the believers to be preparing--in new ways perhaps--for the Second Coming, which Jesus also said would come after the commission he gave to the Apostles to evangelize and baptise throughout the world had been accomplished? A new way that is not traditional church-going, church leadership, and the usual forms of corporate worship?

I really like what you said here, and I cn for the most part agree except for the piece about the church age. I don't think the church age has ended, nor has it come into full fruition yet. And this may be where I may sound a bit wacky, but it is my belief that modern churchgoing is in fact not what Jesus came to establish and is rather a vice from Satan to lock people with otherwise good intentions into a lifestyle where they really aren't doing much other than following their own whims and desires, and it stems out of not realising Jesus and his message for what it truly is. What I mean when I say this is, you are in fact correct that the Lords Supper was established to keep unity, and praying and singing are an intricate part of it. But when I go to church and see people who don't understand what the Lord's Supper is, and don't understand how to pray, but instead go because they feel guilty about what they did the whole week, or think that going to church will make them a better person, well I begin to wonder whether the current system of church is doing anything other than giving laws much like the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time. It seems that church is a place where a person goes to be told how to live, and what to do without any real change of heart. This is why I don't believe that we have progressed pass the church era, nor do I think that the current churches in their state understand Jesus and his message very well.
I'm more likely to get kicked out of a church for disagreeing with a doctrinal issue, than I am to be asked if we can talk about it and work it out. This shows me that leadership is more concerned with their position than they are with actual spiritual growth, and I'm going to suggest that this is probably not limited to just the churches I've been to, but is in fact more widespread and more prominent.

 

[Albion]

I really like what you said here, and I cn for the most part agree except for the piece about the church age. I don't think the church age has ended, nor has it come into full fruition yet.


And this may be where I may sound a bit wacky, but it is my belief that modern churchgoing is in fact not what Jesus came to establish and is rather a vice from Satan to lock people with otherwise good intentions into a lifestyle where they really aren't doing much other than following their own whims and desires, and it stems out of not realising Jesus and his message for what it truly is.What I mean when I say this is, you are in fact correct that the Lords Supper was established to keep unity, and praying and singing are an intricate part of it. But when I go to church and see people who don't understand what the Lord's Supper is, and don't understand how to pray, but instead go because they feel guilty about what they did the whole week, or think that going to church will make them a better person, well I begin to wonder whether the current system of church is doing anything other than giving laws much like the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time.

I can agree in principle, but I have a hard time thinking taht the Church Age has yet to start. That kind of argument (also used by the Mormons, although that's just a passing observation having nothing directly to do with you) makes what he promised a failure IMO. If he commissioned his Apostles to do all these things and sent them off to do them...but it never worked out, I have to say that makes a mockery of his intentions. If it DID WORK OUT but then went astray, that would be different, don't you see?

Now, the only reason this is important here is in relation to how the churches work. If I agree that they're a mess, I have also to say that they once were not that way. But if they are a mess now and not doing what they should, why can't the reason be that the Church Age has ended?

Other than no Second Coming yet, which could be imminent for all we know, what's wrong with concluding that what you describe as the sorry condition of the churches and church-goers we observe owes to the fact that the churches did their work with all the missionaries, conversions of pagan peoples, mass producing of Bibles, etc. and did, more or less, reach the whole world...after which, Jesus said, the end would come?

In other words, the reason for the failures of the mainline churches today means that they stayed too long, holding onto their positions after their mission was accomplished. We know that a century ago most of them were vital, unlike today. They could be like public charities that set out to conquer some disease and then when it's done, they don't go out of business satisfied with accomplishing their goal. They instead keep all the bureaurocracy intact and find some other reason for continuing their existence. Naturally, that is going to be artificial, just as the churches have lost sight of soul-saving and have turned to amusement, social gospel, or other excuses for continuing on. In that atmosphere, of course the congregants are going to be unfed and confused.

 

[Sleaker]

I can agree in principle, but I have a hard time thinking taht the Church Age has yet to start. That kind of argument (also used by the Mormons, although that's just a passing observation having nothing directly to do with you) makes what he promised a failure IMO. If he commissioned his Apostles to do all these things and sent them off to do them...but it never worked out, I have to say that makes a mockery of his intentions. If it DID WORK OUT but then went astray, that would be different, don't you see?

Now, the only reason this is important here is in relation to how the churches work. If I agree that they're a mess, I have also to say that they once were not that way. But if they are a mess now and not doing what they should, why can't the reason be that the Church Age has ended?

Other than no Second Coming yet, which could be imminent for all we know, what's wrong with concluding that what you describe as the sorry condition of the churches and church-goers we observe owes to the fact that the churches did their work with all the missionaries, conversions of pagan peoples, mass producing of Bibles, etc. and did, more or less, reach the whole world...after which, Jesus said, the end would come?

In other words, the reason for the failures of the mainline churches today means that they stayed too long, holding onto their positions after their mission was accomplished. We know that a century ago most of them were vital, unlike today. They could be like public charities that set out to conquer some disease and then when it's done, they don't go out of business satisfied with accomplishing their goal. They instead keep all the bureaurocracy intact and find some other reason for continuing their existence. Naturally, that is going to be artificial, just as the churches have lost sight of soul-saving and have turned to amusement, social gospel, or other excuses for continuing on. In that atmosphere, of course the congregants are going to be unfed and confused.

Ooh, I might make a point that in 1 or 2 places (I forget where) Paul does indeed say that the 'Message' or 'Gospel' has already been preached to all the earth. So if we go by a biblical reference we could say that the church age ended at around 70 AD? Isn't that around when Nero Showed up and when Revalation was partially fulfilled? I mean 666 was a reference to Nero was it not? And there was a great tribulation the temple was destroyed and Israel was scattered once again.. But I like to think in the duality of Prophecy, and the fact that not all of it was fulfilled...

But the biggest thing that keeps me hesitant is the 'revealing of the sons of Glory' my Kingdom mindset is one that puts Jesus returning when he can return to a Bride without spot or wrinkle. As such I don't think that the church is ready yet, although it seems that the time is coming soon!

I would have to assume that the 'church age' was begun because of Revelation 3, and how John writes letters to the different churches. I also would think that the church age is still underway because most churches, if not all, can ascribe themselves to one or more of the 'churches' written about in that same passage.

Ooh did you think I was saying that the Church age hadn't begun yet? Rather I think that it was started, and was corrupted, and has yet to reach it glorious peak. I'm still waiting for verses such as "And greater works than these will you do" to be fulfilled in our day and time.

 

[Albion]

Ooh, I might make a point that in 1 or 2 places (I forget where) Paul does indeed say that the 'Message' or 'Gospel' has already been preached to all the earth.

I'm not speaking of phraseology Paul might have used. I was speaking of the facts, the undeniable facts. Jesus' commission was to go into all the world. Despite the growth of the Church through the centuries, the faith was unknown in most of the world until recently. A century ago no one in Japan or "darkest Africa" had any knowledge of Europeans at all, let alone their religion. But in the time since, the whole world has, in fact, been reached by the Gospel through modern mass media. Oh yes, there are probably a few isolated jungle villages that have not, but essentially the whole world has been reached and only recently. That being done, the Church has -- according to Jesus -- fulfilled its mission.

But the biggest thing that keeps me hesitant is the 'revealing of the sons of Glory' my Kingdom mindset is one that puts Jesus returning when he can return to a Bride without spot or wrinkle.

Then this would require something to happen that I frankly cannot feel comfortable about--the Church succeeding over the course of 2000 years, then backsliding, then surging forward again but in some way that is not part of its reason for existence, i.e. evangelizing the world in preparation for the Second Coming.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion relating to why the churches are now failing. Maybe there is a reason that is within God's plans, and not outside of them or in defiance of them.

I would have to assume that the 'church age' was begun because of Revelation 3,

I take it as starting when Jesus sends his Apostles forth. And then we have the first mass conversions at Pentecost. So by then it has to be well underway IMO. Revelation, as you know, was not written for another 60 years or so.

Ooh did you think I was saying that the Church age hadn't begun yet?[/quote ]

Yeh, but I won't bother checking back to find the statement if you say that was not your meaning.

that it was started, and was corrupted, and has yet to reach it glorious peak. I'm still waiting for verses such as "And greater works than these will you do" to be fulfilled in our day and time.

Hmmm. I have no hesitation in saying that great works have been accomplished in the history of Christianity, but who is to say how "greater works than these" is to be interpreted? It looks to me that Jesus is speaking very figuratively since it is not possible, in the narrow sense, for the Church to surpass what the Cross did, etc.

 

[Sleaker]

Hmmm. I have no hesitation in saying that great works have been accomplished in the history of Christianity, but who is to say how "greater works than these" is to be interpreted? It looks to me that Jesus is speaking very figuratively since it is not possible, in the narrow sense, for the Church to surpass what the Cross did, etc.

I'm pretty sure the reference was to miracles, Jesus told the Pharisees the only Sign they would see was that of Jonah so I'm going off the basis that Jesus work is referred to more as a Sign, rather than something he is referencing here. This seems to fit since he is talking with his disciples and given the context.

As for the gospel being spread to all the nations, I think the appropriate question would then be, What is the Gospel? We do know that something has been preached to all the nations but maybe it has not been the right gospel? A gospel of 'Your sins are forgiven because Jesus died' is not the true gospel from what I've seen in Jesus message, although that is something I've heard as an acceptable way to present it.. I mean Jesus preached the gospel himself, so how can he preach his own death having not died yet? It's something people have seem to have forgotten sometimes.. So then I'm presented with the idea that quite possibly, not everyone has heard the gospel. And I'd venture a guess that the majority of people in America don't even know what the gospel is because they don't actually understand that it's not about Sin, or living morally, but about having a 'Full Life.'

 

[Albion]

I'm pretty sure the reference was to miracles, Jesus told the Pharisees the only Sign they would see was that of Jonah so I'm going off the basis that Jesus work is referred to more as a Sign, rather than something he is referencing here. This seems to fit since he is talking with his disciples and given the context.

That's right. I should have said that we have never quite figured out how to take that statement, since we cannot imagine surpassing Jesus in anything he did.

As for the gospel being spread to all the nations, I think the appropriate question would then be, What is the Gospel? We do know that something has been preached to all the nations but maybe it has not been the right gospel?

Theoretically, that's possible, but again, it requires us to consider Christ's Church a failure up until now. I cannot do that. I can believe that it encounterd errors along the way, etc. but not that it never got off and running--which is what this seems to imply. Of course, we could say that it did good things but still more are to come. My thinking in that regard, though, goes back to asking what the mission of the Church is. It is to spread the knowledge and meaning of Christ everywhere and, as said, to baptise converts. There is not a lot of complexity to that, even though the churches added all kinds of additional emphases. That's why I can't find myself sympathizing with the idea that the wrong Gospel has been preached up to now. It's simple and unequivocal, it's what we know the churches used to do, and it's been done worldwide--the key item.

A gospel of 'Your sins are forgiven because Jesus died' is not the true gospel from what I've seen in Jesus message, although that is something I've heard as an acceptable way to present it.. I mean Jesus preached the gospel himself, so how can he preach his own death having not died yet?

I don't really see that problem and may just be missing it. Jesus taught that he would face death and that men would be saved in him; then afterwards we read of those being converted because of it. No contradictions that I perceive.

So then I'm presented with the idea that quite possibly, not everyone has heard the gospel.

I'm sure that there are some people in Mongolia or somewhere who have not had the religious information about Christianity available to them. But these are few and don't represent a gap in what Jesus said to do--preach to the whole world and make disciples of all nations. That kind of talk doesn't mean to every last living human.

And I'd venture a guess that the majority of people in America don't even know what the gospel is because they don't actually understand that it's not about Sin, or living morally, but about having a 'Full Life.'

Possible, but then that's saying the Church cannot ever accomplish its mission. There will always be ignorant or willfully hostile people, no matter what. Not even if the Bible were read to them daily would they open their hearts, or be able to.