Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Church.

Greystones - St. Patrick's Church (Church Of I...
Greystones - St. Patrick's Church (Church Of Ireland) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
John Macquarrie said this :

Probably more gets written on the Church nowadays than on any other
single theological theme. Most of this writing has a practical orientation.
We hear about the Church in relation to rapid social change, the Church
in a secular society, the Church and reunion, the Church in missions. But
however valuable some of the insights gained in these various fields may
be, they need to be guided and correlated by a theological understanding
of the Church
.

But what actually is the right understanding of the 'church'. Is it the Ekklesia, the congregation of saints? The building, a denomination or a fellowship? In this day and age, it is difficult to ascertain the actual church that  Jesus initiated to what it has developed into today.

Has the church today developed with society, with current ideologies and concepts? What is the church to you? Are we the church today, living up to what God meant us to be and are we projecting a correct Theological Foundation in our structure of our church today?

Enhanced by Zemanta

7 comments:

  1. You raised some very striking question? There are still many more. Most people a very pragmatic about church but theologically we have not reflect enough on The nature of the Church.

    This lead me to raise further questions. I often hear people talking about we must not be so church conscious, we should have a kingdom of God mindset.

    Is the Church, the Kingdom of God? Is there a different between the Church and the Kingdom of God?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I concur with Ps Lim that pragmatism is the name of the game in today's Christian generation. No wonder we are so activity-based and becoming so social in the sense that many Church ministries were so concerned with meeting people's felt needs. Not that meeting the needs were wrong but as far as I can tell, Christian Church doesn't exist for the sake of social justice but rather was mandated to be witness of the gospel and to be a new, redeemed community in Christ.

    I guess not only that most contemporary Christians are theologically ignorance on the nature of the Church, but we are also clueless as to what is the definition and functions of the Church. Perhaps when some people said that we shouldn't be "church-conscious" what they meant was probably that we shouldn't limit ourselves with our respective denomination's or local church's fellowship/activities but to also get involved with other biblically faithful groups of fellow believers in being witnesses for Jesus Christ in this world. However, if my assessment is true at all, this presupposes that the Kingdom of God is made up of the sum of all local churches/denominations. It is an eye opening to me that, according to Erickson (our reading 1 material) that while the Kingdom is the "rule/reign of God," the Church is the human community under that rule. The church is one of the manifestations of the kingdom or reign of God.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also wonder then if church should be redefined according to culture and society. Church today and a few hundred years ago has a different form and structure. Church in malaysia itself has many types and forms according to the cultural context and needs.

    Perhaps then the concept and idea of church should be more of its function rather than its form. Beyond buildings and denominations. I wonder if churches today are at a threshold of change, in order that we may still be able to reach our society - our society which won't simply show up in front of our church doors. Just perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Function over form is interesting. But when form supersedes function, then shouldn't the form be submissive to function?

    There is a place for contextualizing the church to culture, but redefining the church to suit culture is a very dangerous thought.

    The church in Malaysia has many forms. From traditional to nothing but. IS this an evolution of the church experience or merely a didactic transgression?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it is dangerous and can even tempt us to compromise. But when you think of how many churches in the world have changed its form (because they have no choice in order to survive and still spread the gospel) then it really questions our understanding and perception of church, doesn't it? Does it really have to be how we think it should be?

      Didn't the first missionaries who landed in Asia tried to do church the way they have always understood it. And didn't it backfire in some places because of the cultural differences and misunderstandings? Remember China? I simply think we have a lot to think about.

      Delete
  5. Sidetracking, I always think that we can truly see what a church really is in the midst of persecution where the building, structure and organisation don't matter anymore. It is when hard times come, we can truly see the people of God unite and even pay the cost of following Jesus and spreading the Gospel. Then the question arises where have we been playing church all these while or are we the church of Jesus Christ that will stand in the midst of difficulties?

    May God help us all :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Church is really, to me, where the heart is! We can take the body out of the church but can we take the church out of the body? Let's get back to how the early church started, meeting in small groups and coming together to fellowship to fulfill the needs of the day!

    After all our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit! We are the church! Let's not get so 'churchy' comparing each other, in size or finance rather getting the message (good news) out into the world like we are supposed to do.

    ReplyDelete