When Reality bites the Unity

By Terry George

Concerning unity of the Church Millard Erickson writes, “It is important that Christians make sure that divisions and separation are due to genuine convictions and principles, and not to personality conflicts or individual ambition. It is a discredit to the cause of Christ when Christians who hold the same beliefs and goal separate.”

Even without looking too broad outside of our local church, this statement (which is considerably sound & commendable) is easier said than done. If we are to acknowledge the reality of human relationships, it is practically unavoidable that personality conflicts will happen. As hard it is for us, being in the 21^st century – relativistic society to be firm on doctrinal conviction without being deemed intolerance, it is equally difficult to avoid individualism that is so ingrained in our bones. Surely personality traits will affect any kind of Christian ministry whether we like it or not, not to mention our backgrounds, past experiences and spiritual maturity.

With these in mind, especially as followers, how can we preserve (or persevere in :-)) Church unity if, for instance, we face such conflict with spiritual leader albeit not because of doctrinal principle. Let’s be honest to admit that even in a denomination, many congregational splits or divisions happened due to factors other than doctrinal differences. Doctrine aside, can we really work with people that were “dictatorial” or gracious-less in their character? What if someone or some groups of like-minded people choose to move on because they really can’t solve their personality’s differences with others that seem to impede church ministries?

I know this sounded a bit trivial and of course some would point out that what matter the most is God’s work and about working relationships. But really how far can we go before reaching the breaking point? How can we wisely address this sensitive contemporary issue to preserve believers’ unity? Given the propensity of today’s culture toward personal rights and democratic system, how far could we appeal to our common biblical convictions to address personality or cultural differences that could threaten church unity?

Undercover Christians and Wolf-Sheep-men

In an attempt to focus more on the Nature of the Church, I quote our trustworthy friend Prof Erickson. 

“The distinction between the visible and invisible church, a distinction that some would disallow, is not the same as the distinction between the local and the universal church. Rather, what we are dealing with here is the question of the extent to which the true church is to be identified with the present earthly institution. Is it possible, on the one hand, that persons within the visible church are not true believers, not actually part of the body of Christ? And conversely, can there be membership in Christ’s body apart from affiliation with some segment of the visible church, some local collection of believers?”

This is quite a profound statement. Are we to believe that there are some people in our churches, the congregation of ‘saints’ that are actually doing the works of what would be seen as Christian but not being true Christians or true believers? I know this would probably open a can of worms on the dynamics of Salvation and the theories around it, but just for argument sake, what if it was possible? That some could be going through the rigmaroles of Church life and yet not be true believes. 

And what about the converse? What if there are some who are part of the Ecclesia but not part of the Church? We have studied about Christian Contextualization. The so called Hindu-Christians. Or the Buddhist-Christians. But what about people who are from a majority faith country who secretly worship Jesus but have to outwardly portray their practice of the dominant faith? Would they be part of the Ecclesia on the day of reckoning?

THE CHURCH HAS EVOLVED AND IS STILL EVOLVING

By Kathrine Koo

As days, weeks, months and year passes; people and things around us keep changing. Our worldview, culture and lifestyles changes rapidly. Is it good to embrace such changes? Go figure! - People change, and we do need to change. Well, not all changes are bad, and most times, though we do not like it much, change does bring about good things as well.

But as we look at the Church, has the Church change throughout the centuries? To me I would say YES! All through the history of Christianity, from whence the church first began with the apostles to our current times, we have seen the church changed and evolved so much, and I find that with these changes, did we lose out the real meaning of what church is?

Just a simple illustration with the picture below:

3 cross counting from far right. Initially the design of a cross is usually simple and plain but it evolved to a more modern design with diamonds (middle cross) then it evolved again to a postmodern design where it is simple but yet sophisticated. What do you think? Does it still look like a cross?

Coming back to the CHURCH… it started off being the traditional church during the times of the apostles, and then as culture moved into a more scientific age, the church had to evolve into a modern church or state that would fit the culture of the times. And these days, we have and influx of the postmodern church or emerging church which stresses on being relevant to the current generation. What do you think? Does it still look like a Church?

Something to think about:

We have been talking a lot about what is the church in the blog posts and in class, but before we ask the question about what the Church is, I think we need to define what Christianity is? Sometimes we talk so much about church, but, did we miss the mark, about what we’re supposed to do as a Christian, someone who bears the mark of Christ?

To me, we are the hallmark of Jesus Christ and we need to put great effort in walking with God. Being an authentic Christian as a disciple of Christ and thus making disciple of Christ. This I call Church!  

 

What is the church?

By Tabitha Ong

Growing up slightly more postmodern than my parents or church would've preferred, the subject of emerging churches catches my attention..

The freedom in which to be able to live and function as a community of believers that isn't bound by traditions, red tape, fears of "what-ifs".. The promise of an atmosphere of acceptance instead of judgment that pervades is what draws an influx of Christians disillusioned or bored by the confines and rigidity of conventional and traditional churches..

The current trend of young people that are postmodern, seeking more than just religion or a "doctrine" of a relationship they could have with a higher being.. To be a part of something larger than themselves, that would actually make a difference in the world.. To find connection that accepts them for who they are, pushes them to be better in whatever they do..

The article in Christianity Today "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" gave a brief on emerging churches, the 9 practices that define them:
1. Identify with the life of Jesus
2. Transform the secular realm
3. Live highly communal lives
4. Welcome the stranger
5. Serve with generosity
6. Participate as producers
7. Create as created
8. Lead as a body
9. Take part in spiritual activities

The church's purpose according to Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church" is firstly to Worship (Loving God with all our hearts), secondly to Ministry "Loving ur neighbour), thirdly to Evangelism (Go ye into all the world), fourthly to Fellowship (baptising them into the family), and lastly to Discipleship (teaching them to obey)..

Why does the traditional or conventional church seem so unattractive to this current generation, and I'm thinking that we do need to evaluate what needs to be done to be able to offer or present Jesus that makes it relevant..

Church service as temple worship?

Posted by Terry George

From my observation, most contemporary church-goers has considered the church “sanctuary” or the place where the corporate worship is carried out to be some kind of “holy place” or a “temple” where they come into God’s presence to worship. Although not explicitly said, but I think many in the local church subconsciously treated the church service or prayer meeting as something more spiritual or sacred in comparison to other kinds of Christian meetings such as home meeting/cell group or Bible study meeting. No doubt that since a church service is obviously more formal and organized compared to the other meetings, then I guess naturally it will be more esteemed. However, have we as new covenant believers unconsciously (or ignorantly?) transferred the Old Testament paradigm of temple worship into our religious practices? Have we also unknowingly regarded pastor as the NT equivalent to the OT priests or the worship leader/team as Levites?

Therefore, I strongly feel that the contemporary church needs to be biblically educated in the theology of Christian worship since there are many elements/forms of worship found in the bible (that is in OT) that are not directly “transferable” into NT perspective. Since Christ has fulfilled the OT laws, under the terms of the new covenant, it is either only Jesus is our high priest (Heb) or we have the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet). Jesus himself becomes the temple (Jn 2:13-22) or the church as a whole or as individual Christian is the temple (1 Cor 3:16-17; 1 Cor 6:19). Even the language of worship which in OT is so bound up with the temple/holy place and sacrificial system has been radically transformed by what Christ has done (cf. Jn 4:19-26, Rom 12:1-2).

So what are we to make of the contemporary church service? How do we understand what it means to come together for corporate worship? Is the praise & worship part of the service becomes our “offerings of worship” unto the Lord? In what way (if any) individual Christian’s acts of worship different from the corporate worship of the church?

The Church.

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?

Early Pentecostals

I read with a great amount of respect about the early "Azusists". AImage via Wikipedia phrase I've coined to describe the people who were touched by the Revival fire of Azusa Street. These people were different. They had a what would be seen as a faith of reckless abandonment by the natural eye. But they had the fervor, the vision, the faith to boldly take the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit to the ends of the earth. Many times leaving their homes and families to face the unknown, but knowing their God is with them and they go under a divine appointment and covering.

I read of Seymour, who braved all anti African American sentiments, sometimes from even within the church, to respond with an earnest desire to see the work of the Holy Spirit done in them and through them!
Image via Wikipedia
I hear of Pastors within the Assemblies of God of Malaysia, some who have served for more than 30 years, who went against all odds, family objections, financial constraints and answered the call of God to go to Bible School and become pastors and pioneer work in difficult conditions, even braving roach infested rooms to see their calling fulfilled, out rightly relying on the power of the Holy Spirit and the provision of God is their ministry.

It really gets me thinking. As in the words of Katherine Kuhlman : "Katherine Kuhlman is dead". It is God that is alive in her. Have I really died to myself? Am I ready to truly embrace the Power of Pentecost, counting the actual cost?
Have our churches gone soft in calling the congregation to die to themselves and really embrace the Power of the Holy Spirit and operate freely in the gifts and fruits of the Spirit? Hard questions these are ...