Comments on: Church-Hate? http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/2095 David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:09:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Justin http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/2095/comment-page-1#comment-43414 Justin Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:04:34 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2095#comment-43414 Arnau, I do want to say that I think that that quote is great. I think that in this struggle to figure out what it means to "be the Church", that the only place we CAN start is with biblical principles. I think that we've seen the modern Church stray so far from what the original followers and disciples were trying to build, that we HAVE to go back and begin where they started and left off. You are def. on the money with the new books exploring these ideas (McLaren, Jones, Scot, etc..) They "Ancient/Orthodoxy" I think is the place we must begin to build off of. I think honestly, that this was always meant to be a struggle for us. As long as it's a struggle, then we aren't complacent in our responsibility to be "actively on-call". I think your last paragraph is a fantastic example of this!!! Arnau,
I do want to say that I think that that quote is great. I think that in this struggle to figure out what it means to “be the Church”, that the only place we CAN start is with biblical principles. I think that we’ve seen the modern Church stray so far from what the original followers and disciples were trying to build, that we HAVE to go back and begin where they started and left off.

You are def. on the money with the new books exploring these ideas (McLaren, Jones, Scot, etc..) They “Ancient/Orthodoxy” I think is the place we must begin to build off of.
I think honestly, that this was always meant to be a struggle for us. As long as it’s a struggle, then we aren’t complacent in our responsibility to be “actively on-call”. I think your last paragraph is a fantastic example of this!!!

]]> By: Arnau van Wyngaard http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/2095/comment-page-1#comment-43402 Arnau van Wyngaard Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:22:42 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2095#comment-43402 Hi Justin. OK, Anne actually quoted something from my own blog which I posted and which ended up in this blog, under the title "Love / Hate relationship with the church" and which I posted here: http://missionissues.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/love-hate-relationship-with-the-church/ I'm only saying this as I don't want Anne to take responsibility for something which I said and which she just quoted. I agree to a certain extent to what you said. I'm not trying to say that things are clear-cut. What I did say is that we find certain principles in the Bible, in the gospels as well as in Acts and the epistles about how the early Christians understood the task of the church. Christ lay down certain principles (being a light, showing love instead of hate and plenty more) and the early church took these principles and put them into practice. And as far as I can see, these principles have never changed and where they are still being followed, churches grow consistently. When I read books of people writing about how they understand the task of the church (Brian McLAren, Bob Roberts, Eric Bryant, Ron Martoia, Scot McKnight, to name but a few) I find that all of them are actually propagating a return to the Biblical principles. Some make it sound as if they are saying something new, but in almost all cases they are merely saying what Christ have already told us 2000 years ago about how the church should be. The only thing new is to try and understand what it means in today's society. Yes, we are still struggling with the question on what it means. I'm struggling with the question on what it means to be the light of the world in a society (in Swaziland) where at least 40% of the population have HIV or AIDS. I'm struggling to understand how I must communicate love where almost 70% op the population get less than 45 US cents per day! (Read more on my blog: http://missionissues.wordpress.com ) My struggle is not whether I should be a light. My struggle is not whether the church should be a community of love. The struggle is how to do it in our unique circumstances. Hi Justin. OK, Anne actually quoted something from my own blog which I posted and which ended up in this blog, under the title “Love / Hate relationship with the church” and which I posted here: http://missionissues.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/love-hate-relationship-with-the-church/

I’m only saying this as I don’t want Anne to take responsibility for something which I said and which she just quoted.

I agree to a certain extent to what you said. I’m not trying to say that things are clear-cut. What I did say is that we find certain principles in the Bible, in the gospels as well as in Acts and the epistles about how the early Christians understood the task of the church. Christ lay down certain principles (being a light, showing love instead of hate and plenty more) and the early church took these principles and put them into practice. And as far as I can see, these principles have never changed and where they are still being followed, churches grow consistently. When I read books of people writing about how they understand the task of the church (Brian McLAren, Bob Roberts, Eric Bryant, Ron Martoia, Scot McKnight, to name but a few) I find that all of them are actually propagating a return to the Biblical principles. Some make it sound as if they are saying something new, but in almost all cases they are merely saying what Christ have already told us 2000 years ago about how the church should be. The only thing new is to try and understand what it means in today’s society.

Yes, we are still struggling with the question on what it means. I’m struggling with the question on what it means to be the light of the world in a society (in Swaziland) where at least 40% of the population have HIV or AIDS. I’m struggling to understand how I must communicate love where almost 70% op the population get less than 45 US cents per day! (Read more on my blog: http://missionissues.wordpress.com ) My struggle is not whether I should be a light. My struggle is not whether the church should be a community of love. The struggle is how to do it in our unique circumstances.

]]> By: nakedpastor http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/2095/comment-page-1#comment-43400 nakedpastor Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:53:30 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2095#comment-43400 excellent point justin. i agree. excellent point justin. i agree.

]]> By: Justin http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/2095/comment-page-1#comment-43397 Justin Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:47:57 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2095#comment-43397 ok, so here's my question. Just a thought. This idea of "getting back to biblical principles" and a "biblical church" or a "New Testament Church" is a tough one for me. Perhaps it is the way in which I read the Bible, but reading the narrative of the NT church, it isn't consistent. It seems to me to be the story of the early "Christians" (although that term isn't exactly correct either from a historical chronology perspective) trying to figure out what it MEANS to be the followers of Christ post resurrection. It is the story of the early leader's and follower's STRUGGLE to understand who they were and what they were supposed to do in the midst of the void of questions Christ left us in. In essence, we see the story of them wrestling with the question, "What does it mean to be the Church of Jesus." As we see through Acts and the Epistles, there isn't a singular, overarching answer. As we see in history, there were many ways (gnostics for instance) that communities chose to answer that question. What if the Church, and us as the universal Church, are still struggling with that same question. Perhaps it was never answered in the NT. Perhaps that's part of the Christian's journey, both individualized AND corporately. What if we are still trying to figure out what it means to be the Church that Christ talked about? The Church that Christ talked about is very different also than the NT church that formed. So just to throw that idea and question out there. any thoughts on that. That Aside, I do really like your comment Anne! I think the thing we need to pray for most now, and the thing we've prayed for LEAST in the last couple of centuries regarding the Church is wisdom! j ok, so here’s my question. Just a thought. This idea of “getting back to biblical principles” and a “biblical church” or a “New Testament Church” is a tough one for me. Perhaps it is the way in which I read the Bible, but reading the narrative of the NT church, it isn’t consistent. It seems to me to be the story of the early “Christians” (although that term isn’t exactly correct either from a historical chronology perspective) trying to figure out what it MEANS to be the followers of Christ post resurrection. It is the story of the early leader’s and follower’s STRUGGLE to understand who they were and what they were supposed to do in the midst of the void of questions Christ left us in. In essence, we see the story of them wrestling with the question, “What does it mean to be the Church of Jesus.” As we see through Acts and the Epistles, there isn’t a singular, overarching answer. As we see in history, there were many ways (gnostics for instance) that communities chose to answer that question.

What if the Church, and us as the universal Church, are still struggling with that same question. Perhaps it was never answered in the NT. Perhaps that’s part of the Christian’s journey, both individualized AND corporately. What if we are still trying to figure out what it means to be the Church that Christ talked about? The Church that Christ talked about is very different also than the NT church that formed. So just to throw that idea and question out there. any thoughts on that.

That Aside, I do really like your comment Anne! I think the thing we need to pray for most now, and the thing we’ve prayed for LEAST in the last couple of centuries regarding the Church is wisdom!

j

]]>