What is church? [open]

[JulySheMustFly]

Is the modern idea of church what the Bible mentions as church? Why is it that when people are looking for solid advice in the real world they are almost always referred to a pastor? What happened to the priesthood of all believers? Have you ever taken communion outside of the church building setting? Why or why not?

Could someone point me to the verse that mentions where two or three are gathered . . .I'm having trouble finding it.

I know lots of questions. Answer what you want or ask some of your own. I'm currently exploring our modern concept of church and the Biblical concept of church and the application desired by Christ.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

I

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

I hope someone does point at that verse, I have been looking for it as well.

I consider church just to be a gathering of believers. It doesn't have to be organized or whatever. I would love to find that verse just to make a point to some of my family and friends. I do not attend a regular church, and I would really rather not. But because I don't do that I am obviously not a Christian.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Im not sure if "believers" even has any credence for me any more.

I cant help thinking that the NT church seems a step away from Christ. Perhaps we werent supposed to have all this organisation and belief, and just all be Jesus.

For me, that is the real challenge, how to be just like him, autonomous to a certain extent but still humble and accountable. It's a tricky one.

 

[plum]

Mt 18:20 -For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Something just struck me... and it may be nothing (and it's a bit off this topic, so forgive me).
This passage seems to mimic the necessity of two or three eye witnesses needed to accuse someone of a crime. (Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15; 2 Cor 13:1; Heb 10:28, etc.)

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Mt 18:20 -For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Something just struck me... and it may be nothing (and it's a bit off this topic, so forgive me).
This passage seems to mimic the necessity of two or three eye witnesses needed to accuse someone of a crime. (Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15; 2 Cor 13:1; Heb 10:28, etc.)

OT or not that is interesting. Could you expand your thoughts on this a bit?

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Im not sure if "believers" even has any credence for me any more.

I cant help thinking that the NT church seems a step away from Christ. Perhaps we werent supposed to have all this organisation and belief, and just all be Jesus.

For me, that is the real challenge, how to be just like him, autonomous to a certain extent but still humble and accountable. It's a tricky one.

So, are you saying that even the church immediately after Jesus had it wrong? Cause man, if they had it wrong with people who actually knew the flesh and blood Jesus we're up stink creek.

 

[livingword26]

Here's what the Strongs concordance says about the Greek word used for "church" in the new testament.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

 

[livingword26]

So, are you saying that even the church immediately after Jesus had it wrong? Cause man, if they had it wrong with people who actually knew the flesh and blood Jesus we're up stink creek.

No, if we really want to know the truth, it is in the bible. If we earnestly seek God and His truth, He will reveal it to us. Paul warned the church back then of what was coming.

Act 20:28-31
(28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
(30) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
(31) Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

 

[Abiel]

Wherever Jesus is, is church.

 

[xcbxcb]

So, are you saying that even the church immediately after Jesus had it wrong? Cause man, if they had it wrong with people who actually knew the flesh and blood Jesus we're up stink creek.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The Church just after Jesus had a few hundred people. Are you saying that megachurches are what Jesus had in mind when he said:

Mat 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

It seems pretty reasonable to me that the early church, by necessity, needed group meetings. On just a practical level, how else would the message get passed along in? But to think that Jesus would have wanted a once a week Church trip and a 10% tip to take the place of a constant Jesus-like love and compassion for our brothers and sisters doesn't gel with my notions of How To Serve.

I could be wrong, of course! But I'll continue acting on my wrong information. Because even if it doesn't make me a Christian, there's some other religion out there that'll take me, I'm sure.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The Church just after Jesus had a few hundred people. Are you saying that megachurches are what Jesus had in mind when he said:

Mat 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

It seems pretty reasonable to me that the early church, by necessity, needed group meetings. On just a practical level, how else would the message get passed along in? But to think that Jesus would have wanted a once a week Church trip and a 10% tip to take the place of a constant Jesus-like love and compassion for our brothers and sisters doesn't gel with my notions of How To Serve.

I could be wrong, of course! But I'll continue acting on my wrong information. Because even if it doesn't make me a Christian, there's some other religion out there that'll take me, I'm sure.

No. I most certainly am not suggesting that the mega churches are the "right" way to go. I'm exploring for myself exactly what it means to be part of The Church. I asked because I don't have the answers and answers can't be formulated until you ask the question and gather information.

But what consisted of these group meetings? Where they a song and prayer and talking to? or Where they something else? Dinner, some chit chat that was focused on Jesus' teachings? I don't know and am curious about that.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

So, are you saying that even the church immediately after Jesus had it wrong? Cause man, if they had it wrong with people who actually knew the flesh and blood Jesus we're up stink creek.

Given Jesus own use of chairos/chronos in terms of timescale, that is artificial logic, IMO. What I am saying is that we read a LOT about the STRUCTURE of NT church, but structure is not "church". The word church is not a religious word, originally, and it is interchangeable with a name used by a group of demons who were cast out of pigs... "legion" which is also a bad translation... what am I going on about? Ironically, The Message has it closest... "mob". Church means mob. That is a group of people with a common cause. End of.

Jesus is outside of time, so chairologically (rather than chonologically) we can suppose that "closeness" to the created norm in terms of church will relate not to how close chronologically its establishment is to the birth/life of Jesus, but rather the closeness of the church to created order would be according to the prescence of God (the chairos = the importance/atmosphere).

And here is the rub, for all the miracles, church-plantings and martyrdoms, is it Biblical, let alone moral, to suppose that the NT church was any closer to "true church" than any other church in any other time or culture? God's favour is poured out regardless of holiness, sin or obedience, thanks to grace. IMO.

I've met Jesus in the dead I've seen raised in the name of Jesus, in an African Shaman and in a communist-atheist-cuban! I have no reason to beleive any one model of church is "righter" or "closer", but I wonder at this: the more personal and maturely interdependent, the more Jesus, and V/V.

The "world" often recognises it is wrong but cannot change due to ignoring or forgetting the consequences of its lifestyle. The "church" rarely admits it's wrong and fears consequences, bad and good! I'm less concerned with holiness as I am with grace. Both are tangled up in sin, the "holy" people deny it or are blind to it or fear it, the "gracious" people accept it and act accordingly, rightly or wrongly. In a perfect world! Or church

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Thanks for expanding on that.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Is the modern idea of church what the Bible mentions as church? Why is it that when people are looking for solid advice in the real world they are almost always referred to a pastor? What happened to the priesthood of all believers? Have you ever taken communion outside of the church building setting? Why or why not?

Could someone point me to the verse that mentions where two or three are gathered . . .I'm having trouble finding it.

I know lots of questions. Answer what you want or ask some of your own. I'm currently exploring our modern concept of church and the Biblical concept of church and the application desired by Christ.

There are both broad and narrow answers to your questions. The Church is us, it was founded by the incarnate God on the shoulders of men. In a way this answers your final question, is the Church what Jesus intended. Yes (all of it). He gave it into our hands to make the church, so what we made is what he intended. Three of us on my back porch sharing communion is as much church as is Sunday Communion with my congregation.

As to why folks often refer you to your Pastor or Priest, it is because we are (at least supposed to be) steeped in theology, counseling and doctrine - much of our entire purpose is to provide our community with advise and counsel from a Christian ethical perspective.

Can't help you with the priesthood of all believers, because I don't believe that that was the intent, we are a priestly race in the sense that we may all enter the tabernacle, the sanctuary and approach the alter of God, that does not mean that we al have the calling to be Deacon, Priest or Bishop. Hope that helps.

 

[scraparcs]

*aside* Welcome, Rev. Smith! Great to see you again!

*on topic* If you want to explore other ideas of church, I hope some Catholics stop by. The Catholic idea of church is very different from most non-Catholic ideas of church.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I always loved the line in the hymn "One Foundation" which reads:

We are God's house of living stones,
Built for His own habitation

Each one of us is the church- the resting place of God's grace in this world. Buildings and organizations are only important because we ourselves are in them. This makes them very important though, because through each other we meet Christ and are strengthened in our love for ourselves and others.

 

[Im_A]

Is the modern idea of church what the Bible mentions as church? Why is it that when people are looking for solid advice in the real world they are almost always referred to a pastor? What happened to the priesthood of all believers? Have you ever taken communion outside of the church building setting? Why or why not?

Could someone point me to the verse that mentions where two or three are gathered . . .I'm having trouble finding it.

I know lots of questions. Answer what you want or ask some of your own. I'm currently exploring our modern concept of church and the Biblical concept of church and the application desired by Christ.

i'm not one to say if the modern church is exactly what the Bible defines as "church". in a religion with so many different Christian churches teaching different morals, different theologies, i don't know what the "church" is defined as.

is using the verse where two or more gather in my name, i am there also enough for "church"? i personally don't know. scrap all the ancient sacraments, add in some reforming things of modern society and is it still church as the Bible defined it as? i don't know.

does ideas such as "the priesthood of all believers", the ancient sacraments applicable to our modern mentality? i don't know. obviously in a lot of Christianity it isn't. it seems to be picking and choosing which "holy" sacrament to partake in.

all i do know what the church is today is what it is. if it is supported by the Bible, i'm not one to say but out of curiosity, what would the harm be if it isn't?

to answer your other question, i haven't taken communion in years. i have some questions about it thus i am refraining from it till the right time, because if it is as holy as we as Christians believe it is, i will not spit on that holy sacrament by taking it in vain.

 

[plum]

OT or not that is interesting. Could you expand your thoughts on this a bit?

I didn't see your question until now, sorry. I'm not sure what new insight I can give, but let me try to express it (sorry if this is long, i might repeat myself)

What I was thinking is that numbers mean a lot in Scripture. Specific numbers, that is. Like uses of seventy, seven, five, two, etc... they all tie back in together.
When I hear "two or three" in that kind of statement, I think of the two or three eyewitnesses necessary to accuse someone of a crime--or, if I can midrash a bit--to establish the truth of a situation.

I've been looking into the concept of the phrase "in my name" found so often in Scripture, especially connected with Jesus. The Hebraic concept of a "Name" is not limited to the letters and pronunciation of someone's given name. It's not so much a label.
Someone's Name is their character, their person, what they stand for. So taking the Lord's name in vain, for instance... I don't think that means saying "Oh God". I think that means misrepresenting God's character and making Him out to be something He is not--in a sense, being a bad eye witness. Here's a short explanation of it that I enjoyed reading. It at least made me think.

Anyway, so what about this "gathered in my name" business? perhaps us gathering "in the name of Jesus" means lifting up his character and representing who he is here on this earth. Maybe it means when two or three of us are witnesses --meaning acting as he would and being "Jesus with skin on"-- then the truth about him becomes known, and there he is with us because we're representing him in truth.

It's like making someone your signatory (not sure if that's the right word), or letting someone represent you in a situation where you cannot be present. You are basically letting them be there in your name and do what you would do in that situation So in a way, you are there because your ways and wishes are being carried out by your representative.

that's what i think this might be about.... not church, really... but representing Jesus to the world as a witness to make him known.

 

[rocklife]

Matthew 18:20 is the verse Jesus says two or three gathered in His name, there He is: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...se=19&end_verse=21&version=31&context=context

here is a little bit about defining a church symbolically, saying Jesus is the head of the body, the church: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...se=17&end_verse=19&version=31&context=context

you can look up in this website words, just type in any word and it will show you all references in the Bible, and you can see different bible versions (www.biblegateway.com)