Names for this type church

[M Paul]

How well does the name hidden church apply to the emergent church?? I've been using Emergent, Emerging, House, Home, Non-Institutional, New Testament, Cell, and Cell-Unit Church. Then, I saw Unseen Church used the other day, and I thought that was good, and I saw Hidden at the same time.

Does anyone know of other names used for this church movement??? Invisible Church would be very bad, as it has a traditional theological meaning.

Well, what do you think of any of these terms??

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

So....
There is a distinction to be made that is more than just wording:::
The difference between emerging and emergent church.

A house church, alternative worship event, new church... these are emerging churches, in that they have a structure an expression that is clearly visible. Product.

Emergent refers to that which has yet to emerge. It is a PROCESS of euthenazing the already dying church and grieving its loss. Within this grief is the emergent. This period could be decades long... a death and loss of Biblical proportions - a desert wandering for example... The main difference could be the emphasis. To be emergent is to be INTERDEPENDENT with the community around us.

Emerging is usually to do with expression and form and style of church.
Emergent is to do with people and church as "unchurched" with the "non-church".

This is not an exclusive defintion, just one borne of experienc of most of the types you have listed!

Flan out.

[M Paul]

So....
There is a distinction to be made that is more than just wording:::
The difference between emerging and emergent church.

A house church, alternative worship event, new church... these are emerging churches, in that they have a structure an expression that is clearly visible. Product.

Emergent refers to that which has yet to emerge. It is a PROCESS of euthenazing the already dying church and grieving its loss. Within this grief is the emergent. This period could be decades long... a death and loss of Biblical proportions - a desert wandering for example... The main difference could be the emphasis. To be emergent is to be INTERDEPENDENT with the community around us.

Emerging is usually to do with expression and form and style of church.
Emergent is to do with people and church as "unchurched" with the "non-church".

This is not an exclusive defintion, just one borne of experienc of most of the types you have listed!

Flan out.

Thanks for the response. This movement really is in a number of ways still forming, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the vocabulary. However, those who oppose the movement, I think, are playing with the words, and I mean people of reputation. I just read some articles, and the way they described the movement had me so confused, I had no idea what they were talking about, and I thought there must be some other thing going on. But, at last I realized they were using a sophisticated straw man argument to find a way to discredit the movement. I know of one denomination that makes the straw man a habitual device, and it turns out they are not just scholarly, but never wrong. I think, maybe, the opposition is coming, and when their only device is to misstate what they want to argue against, we know we have the truth.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Indeed. It's just plain obvious to me. Church is dying. Lets kill ourselves early and be buried in community. If God's life is still real, we'll ressurect with community eventually.

I know of a few anti-emerging peeps. They do talk out their butts alot, judging this,that and the other without talking to God.

It's a calling, plain and simp.

[discernomatic]

I did a Google on "hidden church" which yielded mostly results about churches built underground or references to underground churches, i.e. groups of Christians forced to meet secretly because of persecution.

A search on "unseen church" yielded information about the First-Century Church.

Flandidly Anders' description of emerging churches seems to me to be an inclination of the church to the world. The Church dissolves, becoming one with society. I see the function of the Church and the Gospel as calling people out of the world, urging them to separate themselves from it. This does not mean enforced isolation. Christians are called to help others with good works as well as the Gospel. But when two or three Christians come together to worship and pray together, then Jesus Christ is with them. But he has separated himself from the world as his Father has.

Flandidly Anders included house churches as emerging churches. But house church does not automatically equal house church. Some may be emerging and some may not.

The G12 system, a network of cell churches is sectlike. Control is very strict. Other networks of house churches also have their own agendas. They may have no trained leadership, but are controlled by the network and use network materials for teaching.

Some Reformed churches have a loose network, no episcopal system, and meet in houses. As soon as the group gets too large to meet this way they split. As a rule these Reformed groups have trained leadership.

Yet other house churches have no affiliations but just meet to worship and read Scripture together.

A new purpose-driven small group system is also emerging, just hot off the press (a link off my website):

Small Groups Coaching Program Begins Second Session at Saddleback Rhoda Tse, September 13, 2005
THE CHRISTIAN POST
Purpose Driven Ministries... and Brett Eastman... will train church leaders... providing them with a comprehensive strategy that will help initiate a special small group ministry that will transform the community for Christ. (http://www.christianpost.com/article/americas/164/section/small.groups.coaching.program.begins.second.session.at.saddleback/1.htm)

http://www.christianpost.com/article/americas/164/section/small.groups.coaching.program.begins.second.session.at.saddleback/1.htm

I am not including this link to condone the program. On the contrary, I am very sceptical of it. It has already been endorsed by Phil Amaya, senior pastor of Church with No Walls and Dan Southerland, speaker and author of the best-selling book Transitions, "The future of the church in America is in the Small Group Movement."

I like the idea of small home groups, but I would not want to go to one that is "driven" in such a way.

It seems that Rick Warren has picked up on the idea, noticing that there is an ever growing group of unchurched Christians that he can tap in on, if they let him. He is not the only one trying to reach the unchurched. I see it as the same strategy that the Catholic Church used at the beginning, as a way to conquor the Body of Christ using its own methods but in a counterfeited form (If you can't beat them, join them - and then beat them.).

Home churches were a way out for some Christians that wanted to escape what they thought of as established churches that had became too worldy and compromising. The new cell-churches and home churches that run on pre-set programs controlled from the top down will conquor some groups that otherwise would have been free of worldly influence.

Rick Warren's version is, in my opinion, just another diversion from the truth. He may have designed it with good intentions, but if it is linked to the philosophies that he has already expressed in his literature then I cannot condone it. I see it and the other pre-fabricated systems as just another way to control and even extinguish (if that were possible) the true Body of Christ.

In that sense, you can call the emerging churches house churches. Maybe you could call them "Social" churches or "Uniting" churches, because they may be striving for world unity. How about "Communitarian" churches or "Kingdom Here", "Future Kingdom" or "Future Now" churches?

Perhaps a new name should be found for those house churches that wish to separate themselves from the world. "New Testament" has been used and overused. "Fundamentalist" already has a set definition. "First-Century" could be an appropriate name, since the house groups had no real network at that time.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I said it before and I'll say it again...

I don't know about all the rest, but what I'm about isa calling. It is the belief that many church structures are no longer world-serving but self-maintaing. We as church felt this and killed the dying church.

Jesus asks us to be in the world, not of it. This can be translated very loosely indeed, and I see no contradiction in churching it with non-christian's. This interdedpendence is not a calling for everyone, because some of us are at different spiritual stages... I still struggle to think of a more christlike example than Ghandhi.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

"According to organizers, the coaching program will help each pastor and church build a small group ministry that will deepen worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry and mission in their church for each member."

- from that site u quoted (i appreciate u werent promoting it)... is the world full of christian's who can't follow Jesus for themselves and need to be spoon-fed? I appreciate that this is a valid stage of development, but what is Holy Spirit for?

some things are emerging church, some are just whatever they are, few are emergent because this takes grief, horror, questioning... desert years... and loss of everything and calling.

there is no group name for things that are all diametrically opposed - except church!

[discernomatic]

I said it before and I'll say it again...

I don't know about all the rest, but what I'm about isa calling. It is the belief that many church structures are no longer world-serving but self-maintaing. We as church felt this and killed the dying church.

I agree that many established churches today are more self-maintaining. Most members just donate money and hope that something reasonable is done with it. Often it gets stuck into maintenance, sometimes into mission. I too see the need for everyone to get out and help people. Indeed, I have to because I have no money to donate.


Jesus asks us to be in the world, not of it. This can be translated very loosely indeed, and I see no contradiction in churching it with non-christian's. This interdedpendence is not a calling for everyone, because some of us are at different spiritual stages... I still struggle to think of a more christlike example than Ghandhi.

You translate that passage much more loosely than I do. But I do not attribute it to me being at a different spiritual stage than you are. I see us going in different spiritual directions. No offense here, I think that everyone should do what he thinks best, once he has weighed everything on the balance. Maybe you are called to interdependence, but I am sure that I am not. Gandhi may have been a very good man but despite his deeds he did not believe the Gospel. I prefer to look towards Paul as my Christlike example, who did believe the Gospel.

Love your graphics. They are the freakiest I've seen in a long time. :)

[heron]

Some of the emergent churches base their structure on joint eldership, rather than ministerial heirarchy. This includes a sense of joint ownership with each member taking on significant responsibilities.

Taking in all of discernomatic's details, it's difficult to come up with an all-inclusive term. Do you need to define it for formal exposition, or peace of mind?

dispersion / neo-diaspora
mini-me churches
flattened pyramids

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Some of the emergent churches base their structure on joint eldership, rather than ministerial heirarchy.

That's the only type of church I've ever been part of most of my life!!!!!
I tried other styles.... got royally boned!

I still wonder if Ghandhi was following Jesus.

Is there a less helpful word in christian culture than "ministry"?

The bit about spiiritual directions, not stages is valid - I was talkin about calling after all!!!

[heron]

Flan, I just visited your church's site--that's a large home church! Sounds like the next part of the wave.

Spiritual directions, definitely. The more we think we know, the more we endanger ourselves.

Spent some time this AM on this subtopic, and ran across some informal terminology:

-deconstructionist
-without walls (wall-less?)
-upside-down pyramid, top down

I think you'd need to go with the visible image of size, division, tiny increments (incremental church?) in order to include so many variations.

Emergent reminds me of "Modern Art" or "Postmodernism," where the term quickly outdates itself...leaving a relic that wants to be a child.

[M Paul]

Emergent reminds me of "Modern Art" or "Postmodernism," where the term quickly outdates itself...leaving a relic that wants to be a child.

Indeed, some are associating the word "Emergent" with "Postmodernism." And, critics seem to be saying that "Postmodernism" means in regard to this movement that we are trying to change the core doctrines of conservative theology. This, I think, is a straw man argument--a desperate way to degrade the movement. I'm not aware of any association of "Emergent Church" with having to advocate liberal theology. In fact, liberal theology arose well before the concept of "emergent," and is actually "Modernism." The "Emergent Chruch" is a focus on structure and communication, and it can be used with any theology.

However, if "Postmodernism" means a culture that is emerging after modernism, that challenges traditional concepts of overall organization of thought, of new ways of structuring and communicating, of focusing on the fuctioning of small units as opposed to the whole, then it does seem appropriate to apply it to the emerging church. However, that application would only be in regard to a new structure and way of communicating emerging, and a focus on small units, rather than the whole. I think the term caught on, as it does seem the house church was unseen and then suddenly emerging in culture. It's a more exciting term. And, it would then seem natural to associate it with "Postmodernism." But, is there a basis then to necessarily view it as a form of liberalism, or is the similarity with PostModernism being used to force an illegitimate criticism on the movement???

(Of course, part of the house church movement is, as it always was in history, a defense against persecution, such as in Vietnam today, and that is a way in these circumstances it is call "hidden" or "unseen).

However, how do you find that the term "Postmodernism" is outdated???

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Discernomatic,

I reviewed your reply, but you included a whole lot to think about. So, let me think about it for now.

Regards,

Paul

[heron]

Paul,
Postmodernism crosses so many disciplines and slides over so many time boundaries, that it carries too many implications. I would like to see people make the terms as specific to the incident as possible. Even if others are using the term Postmodernism, we each should keep our language clear and universally understood. No?

By outdated, I'm just referring to the common words. Literature under "High Modernism," was written between 1910 and 1930, making it no longer modern (in common terms). Modern and Contemporary used to mean "now," but represented an expired era.

Works after the 1930's could be termed Postmodern. That was nearly 80 years ago.

Some of the qualities represent the home church movement well: fragmentation and discontinuity, ambiguity, destructurization, and decentralization. But other conflicting statements have been made about postmodernism, such as the "resistance to the questioning of the 'grand narratives' of religious truth."

(Dr. Mary Klages, University of Colorado http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html)

I'm just being fussy. Since you asked about terminology, I thought I'd get you thinking.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

TOP DOWN is key, definately.

Postmodernity in terms of church lends itself to some emerging, rather than emergent churches, I would have said. I think too much has been talked about and not eough done, so I'm just talking about what we as church have done!

To me, Postmodernity (I'm an artist) is to do with borrowing ideas and re-presenting them. Classically, something like youth church (shudder) - where a target group is identified and structures are altered to serve this new identity; the pastor wears baggy pants and we have a DJ instead of a guitarist. Such a thing is an essential step for many (I been there!)... so, we have the idea that the Gospel is inherently communicable if only we could repackage it in culturally relevant (another swearword!?) terms.

Obviously as a society we are post-postmodern (or maybe post-post-post) and tending towards a completely different LIFESTYLE/WORLDVIEW. The church is failing to recognise that it is not the Gospel that is or isn't effectiv, but the CHURCHES LIFESTYLE/WORLDVIEW. As church, we are often caught in postmodernity (if we're that advanced at all!) where we attempt to repackage everything Christian. Where as the "World" is needing substance that can be lived and seen to be lived.

This is all very unclear and probably over-complicated or over-simplified I'm sure!
Anyone else get me or say it better or have any comments?

[heron]

I think some of our flexibility comes from the lives we lead outside the church. We change everything else for efficiency and efficacy, so why not the church? So far, believers still fight for the purity of the original intent, no matter how diverse their interpretations are.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I think some of our flexibility comes from the lives we lead outside the church. We change everything else for efficiency and efficacy, so why not the church?

That's the badger!

[lismore]

How well does the name hidden church apply to the emergent church?? I've been using Emergent, Emerging, House, Home, Non-Institutional, New Testament, Cell, and Cell-Unit Church. Then, I saw Unseen Church used the other day, and I thought that was good, and I saw Hidden at the same time.

Does anyone know of other names used for this church movement??? Invisible Church would be very bad, as it has a traditional theological meaning.

Well, what do you think of any of these terms??

Regards,

Paul

One good name:

Free at last!

No more playing the same old game,

[M Paul]

One good name:

Free at last!

No more playing the same old game,

Amen!!! But be careful--people can play games in the home church movement. That's one of the reasons why my church has a constitution--it trys to make playing games unconstitutional. But, that's also why I believe the home church movement should be associated with a body of literature--at least my church is developing some.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Paul,
Even if others are using the term Postmodernism, we each should keep our language clear and universally understood. No?

Well, it just depends--are some of those who are using the term Postmodernism doing so dishonestly to associate a false meaning to the emergent or house church movement?? If so, they are going to do everything they can to keep the understanding of the movement in a state of confusion. And, they aren't going to let any one make the language clear. A response has to be developed for it, but it requires a lot of investigation on what is going on.

Some of the qualities represent the home church movement well: fragmentation and discontinuity, ambiguity, destructurization, and decentralization. But other conflicting statements have been made about postmodernism, such as the "resistance to the questioning of the 'grand narratives' of religious truth."


Those people who want to be critical of the movement would like this statement--but these concepts don't have to apply to the house church movement as they do to literature. If the movement is one of differing structure and focus, then it's not a falling apart as your statement seems to imply, but a move toward greater integrity and relevance. There is much less amibguity than you might think, but not amongst those who are not expert in communication. And having a focus on a cell-unit as the basic structure is not fragmentation in the sense of a loss of an overall structure--it's just a different structure.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

This is all very unclear and probably over-complicated or over-simplified I'm sure!
Anyone else get me or say it better or have any comments?

No, you're not being unclear. However, it's a partial expression of what is going on.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

Amen!!! But be careful--people can play games in the home church movement. That's one of the reasons why my church has a constitution--it trys to make playing games unconstitutional. But, that's also why I believe the home church movement should be associated with a body of literature--at least my church is developing some.

Regards,

Paul

To me , that still perpetuates the games . There could still be the idea of committment to the group . While that still exists , other items can exist as well . But , that is me . :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Carefull on the literature... unless its realistic and fluid literature, yer gonna die a long slow painful death... (persoanlly, I prefer a bullet)

[heron]

The ambiguity isn't in the individual churches, but in trying to lump them all together as one identity. It is definitely a movement, but more of an Exodus outward. You know the motivations: desire to connect personally, conviction to get closer to the streets, disillusionment, purism, using gifts and strengths, etc. Each group has strong definitions, but each group is different.

I like the imagery of fractured, but the word implies a negative force and a weakening.

The movement almost creates a greater diversification (imagined diversification), which is why I like the words like "dispersed," as pieces of matter in a beaker breaking into smaller increments. But many have the pyramid in mind, so this is also an element...not consistent but probably stronger in the US than traditional house churches in hiding. (Ha, traditional. Is that disrespectful to their plight?)

I've been alongside some friends starting a home church this year, stopping in once in a while. I wasn't in a place to connect quite as closely as they wanted to. In visiting them on occasion, I've found that they've retained many of the mindsets they were trying to escape: increasing the power and responsibilty of the leaders, defaming others, allowing vocal members to dominate conversations and decisions, varying opinions on finances and general direction...we're all human, whether in big flocks or little.

I do like the emergent movement, and see it crucial and proactive to things we might face in the future. For me, it's a little claustrophobic, finding the same problems in a tighter scale. Fortunately the dialogue is not about me. (-:

[New_Wineskin]

. In visiting them on occasion, I've found that they've retained many of the mindsets they were trying to escape: increasing the power and responsibilty of the leaders, defaming others, allowing vocal members to dominate conversations and decisions, varying opinions on finances and general direction...we're all human, whether in big flocks or little.

Yes . They are still doing what Luther did ... they take out what they didn't like and automatically keep the rest - not questioning the validity of anything else . My idea is to throw everything out and then start adding things that one actually desires or considers to be important . That's right ... throw the baby out with the bathwater . Have a brand new baby . Giving birth isn't always easy . :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

My idea is to throw everything out and then start adding things that one actually desires or considers to be important . That's right ... throw the baby out with the bathwater . Have a brand new baby . Giving birth isn't always easy . :)

That ain't your idea, Wino, it's God's!!!!

What was the baby doing in the deep end on its own anyway.... holding onto "concrete christian essentials" to keep it afloat?

[M Paul]

To me , that still perpetuates the games . There could still be the idea of committment to the group . While that still exists , other items can exist as well . But , that is me . :)

No, I don't think that is just you. It's the truth. The Bible could be considered one long story of God's struggle against religious hypocrisy. We're not going to eliminate the hypocrites by returning to a more biblical church structure--they will always be a problem. But, we may be able to reduce how much influence they are able to have if conditions are set up properly.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

It is definitely a movement, but more of an Exodus outward.

I don't think it's more an Exodus outward. I moved out, that is true. But, I had to. What motivated me was finding the congregational church boring and irrelevant, which caused me to study Scripture more and more. I didn't think God wanted church that way, and I felt the answers to it would be found in the Bible. Then, I found that the congregational structure simply was not in there. I was shocked at the dishonesty of the interpretation on the Corinthian epistles being offered at the colleges and churches. The more I studied, the more I found that the cell-unit was the basis of church structure in the Bible, and the way out of having a boring and irrelevant church experience. So, I never would have Exodused out, if I had not found the truth first in the Bible.

True, the home church movement faces the problems in hypocrisy of all churches throughout history. But, I believe that having a true church structure is the best starting point for dealing with it. And, I believe, that as the movement develops, more and more methods can be found to fight against what hypocrisy arises.

Regards,

Paul

[heron]

New_Wineskin, we participated in a church plant several years ago that determined to avoid programs for at least the first year. They had the service, and a mid-week Bible study. Needing a place for babies to stay quiet, they cleared out a narthex room and started an informal nursery. Then they held dinners to get everyone together socially. Everything eventually looked like a traditional church, with one exception: the offering plate sat on the piano, for those who knew where it was to sneak over later and give. That really touched us, after so many guilt trips from the pulpit in other churches.

Paul, my analysis of this movement is truly toddler-like. I have only visited this forum topic area for the last few days, amazed at the matter-of-fact statements that I fought so hard to convey in other locations here. It has been very refreshing...thanks, guys.

[New_Wineskin]

No, I don't think that is just you. It's the truth. The Bible could be considered one long story of God's struggle against religious hypocrisy. We're not going to eliminate the hypocrites by returning to a more biblical church structure--they will always be a problem. But, we may be able to reduce how much influence they are able to have if conditions are set up properly.

Regards,

Paul

I think that people thinking that they *need* to have a "biblical" model helps to continue the religious hypocracy . It also helps to continue the idea of "membership" and elitism . Well , one step at a time . Huh ? :)

[New_Wineskin]

New_Wineskin, we participated in a church plant several years ago that determined to avoid programs for at least the first year. They had the service, and a mid-week Bible study. Needing a place for babies to stay quiet, they cleared out a narthex room and started an informal nursery. Then they held dinners to get everyone together socially. Everything eventually looked like a traditional church, with one exception: the offering plate sat on the piano, for those who knew where it was to sneak over later and give. That really touched us, after so many guilt trips from the pulpit in other churches.


Yes . It is hard to get out of the mindset . The very fact that there is enough overhead to need monetary support would be a help in getting back to the traditional ways .

[/quote]
Paul, my analysis of this movement is truly toddler-like. I have only visited this forum topic area for the last few days, amazed at the matter-of-fact statements that I fought so hard to convey in other locations here. It has been very refreshing...thanks, guys.[/QUOTE]

Good observation .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Hey Paul, I forgot I had this kicking about... it's a link basically debunking Rick Warrens Purpose-driven doo-dar... it's quite good, bit long though, I'll chuck the URL here if yer interested ;)

http://www.e-church.com/Blog.asp?EntryID=345

[M Paul]

I think that people thinking that they *need* to have a "biblical" model helps to continue the religious hypocracy . It also helps to continue the idea of "membership" and elitism . Well , one step at a time . Huh ? :)

Well, I've posted previously that actually there is room for great flexibility in the Bible on church structure. However, the difference in your view may be what significance you give to Scripture. I use it as a guide to every aspect of life.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Hey Paul, I forgot I had this kicking about... it's a link basically debunking Rick Warrens Purpose-driven doo-dar... it's quite good, bit long though, I'll chuck the URL here if yer interested ;)

http://www.e-church.com/Blog.asp?EntryID=345

Thinking of Rick Warren, if I remember correctly who he is, goes back to some of the ideas I was trying to review in the beginning of the thread. If the home church is emergent and postmodern, does that refer to theology or structure (or in this instance focus of mission), and are people playing games with the concepts to add confusion to understanding the movement. I believe that in structural terms, which also includes focus, the home church movement fits the concept of PostModernisn perfectly. Not, that I want it to; it just does. However, without the home church movement, is there some other concept of the church emerging?? Hmm-the people who oppose the movement want others to think so, that they can label it liberal theology. But, that's not Postmodern--liberal theology comes from Modernism. And, just having a different focus or a different style at a congregational meeting has no basis for being called Postmodern.

I think Rick Warren is this guy who sent me a CD on how I could have a church service with this purpose driven stuff. I didn't relate to it. If a lot of people do, fine for them. It's not where the practice of Christianity is at for me. However, I think it would do well in the suburbs, and with people who give a lot of signifcance to having an American suburban life style.

Is Warren's approach emergent??? Maybe for someone, but not for me.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

Well, I've posted previously that actually there is room for great flexibility in the Bible on church structure. However, the difference in your view may be what significance you give to Scripture. I use it as a guide to every aspect of life.

Regards,

Paul

Ok . After considering that it *was* a guide to every aspect of life , I found that they stated that they shouldn't be such a guide and that using them in such a way has sidetracked people from the Lord . So , their significance isn't that great for me compared to how significance they are to you .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Erm... Warren's stuff is just plain out of date, it's post-modern, interested in re-packaging church.

Emergent is not the same as emerging!!!

House Church is an example of Emerging because it is emerging!!!
Emergent is to do with loss and grief and 40 years in the desert wondering with those in the desert. It has no "thing" to point at.

House Church is just another normal, logical way to be church; probably the only decent way, to be honest. Emergent is much, much different - may emerge as a house church, maybe as a catholic mass.... don't care as long as its at the right time, once church is interdependent with the world again... that is emergent. Got it?

(u probably got it all along, it's just important to separate house and emerging church from emergent, IMO)

Flan out.

Udamandog, as I'd say if I were blacker, more newyorker and had an ounce of Street Cred.

[M Paul]

Erm... Warren's stuff is just plain out of date, it's post-modern, interested in re-packaging church.

Emergent is not the same as emerging!!!

House Church is an example of Emerging because it is emerging!!!
Emergent is to do with loss and grief and 40 years in the desert wondering with those in the desert. It has no "thing" to point at.

House Church is just another normal, logical way to be church; probably the only decent way, to be honest. Emergent is much, much different - may emerge as a house church, maybe as a catholic mass.... don't care as long as its at the right time, once church is interdependent with the world again... that is emergent. Got it?

(u probably got it all along, it's just important to separate house and emerging church from emergent, IMO)

Flan out.

Udamandog, as I'd say if I were blacker, more newyorker and had an ounce of Street Cred.

Well, you told me this in message #15, but did you notice the web site posted in message #14 on the definition of "Postmodern" by an English professor at a Colorado university. If that addresses the definition, then as I said previously, the house church movement is emergent, but only due to structure, manner of communciation, and focus, not theology. The question is, whether the distinction you make is accepted over a broad social spectrum, and how is it authoritatively established. The more I research the vocabulary, the more I only find broad confusion on terms, and no real consensus.

Therefore, I think that the true use of the concept of "emergent church" is most consistent with the house church movement, and it is synonymous with "emerging church," (but not always). Maybe, the distinctions are more clear in your own circumstances, but how confident can you be they will find general acceptance??? I've tried to find a way to establish the definitions clearly and authoritatively, but I simply can't find the real agreement, and in fact, most people I review the issue with merely say it is too soon to know where the vocabulary will end up. Maybe, I am wrong--there is so much confusion, and I think a lot deliberately induced by opponents to the movement, but so far, no one can show me a true basis for setting specific differences on terminology.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

It's a fair cop, Paul.
My main input on this is a geezer called Kester Brewing and his book The Complex Christ.

I appreciate that you are being called to house/cell-church exploration, rather than the wilderness/suicide church... so our views are slightly out of kilter.

NP old bean.

[heron]

I think that people thinking that they *need* to have a "biblical" model helps to continue the religious hypocracy . It also helps to continue the idea of "membership" and elitism.
However, the difference in your view may be what significance you give to Scripture. I use it as a guide to every aspect of life.
Paul, be nice!
New Wineskin's concern is valid. Once any organization sets up rules, they are prone to legalism. We all scramble for security and protection in setting up structure. The comment is not about following the Bible, but demanding one or two people's interpretation of the Bible be followed by all. The loudest have the most influence, and the others are told they are wrong.

If it were so clear, we would have thousands of perfect churches by now.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

"Even in the most radical of groups, you will find
That when you stray from the documents, you'll reach hard times..."

Is there anything the DHOH didn't rap about? Bless their cotton-pickin' socks.

[M Paul]

It's a fair cop, Paul.
My main input on this is a geezer called Kester Brewing and his book The Complex Christ.

I appreciate that you are being called to house/cell-church exploration, rather than the wilderness/suicide church... so our views are slightly out of kilter.

NP old bean.

Well, you've got me thinking. It seems there are a number of people who would say that emerging applies to house church, and emergent to a new focus on mission. Whether that view can be sustained and will prevail, I don't know. But, maybe I should change the positions of the words on my banner, and put emerging on the upper part of the lower section, and emergent beneath it, rather than the reverse as now placed.

Regards,

Paul

Hmm--NP??

[M Paul]

Paul, be nice!
New Wineskin's concern is valid. Once any organization sets up rules, they are prone to legalism. We all scramble for security and protection in setting up structure. The comment is not about following the Bible, but demanding one or two people's interpretation of the Bible be followed by all. The loudest have the most influence, and the others are told they are wrong.

If it were so clear, we would have thousands of perfect churches by now.

I'm missing something now. How am I not being nice??? And, at other parts of the thread I've mentioned how hypocrisy will continue in any church situation and what might be involved in overcoming it. However, it wasn't obvious to me that the comment entailed what you said or just that. And, the only point I was making was a difference in perspective on the significance of the Bible.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Hey Paul, been sifting thru yer site...

The Pastor shall direct the spiritual welfare of the Church, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and by the norms of Scripture. He shall lead all Church activities, have charge of worship services situated at sanctuaries and chapels, preach the Gospel, teach the Bible and structure overall educational and training programs, recommend goals for monitored sessions, administer Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, conduct weddings and funerals, interact with other churches, and be available to members, attenders, and outsiders for prayer and to discuss spiritual matters of life as they relate to Scripture.

This seems to suggest a full-time leader, and assumes this person to be male.
Is this an oversight? Or are you listing the qualities of a traditonal Pastor, rather than one you are promoting? (sorry if this is a stoopid question)

[M Paul]

Hey Paul, been sifting thru yer site...



This seems to suggest a full-time leader, and assumes this person to be male.
Is this an oversight? Or are you listing the qualities of a traditonal Pastor, rather than one you are promoting? (sorry if this is a stoopid question)

Actually, this constituion is written to be flexible and to apply to whatever situation arises. However, yes, I believe that the house church/whole church structure most often would lead to the necessity of the leader being full time. In this constitution the postion is male, as the executive officer. You can look at the article on my web site titled "The Image of Woman in Scripture" to find that basis. However, I review that some churches hold the biblical passages on leadership are culturally relative in interpretation, and that leaves room for a female executive officer for those who interpret the Bible in that manner. You may note that I also believe the husband is the spiritual head of the family--the Bible is very clear on that.

I don't know what you mean, rather than the one I am promoting. I hope it's the one in the Bible. He certainly doesn't preach very much in the church. The difference in the house church is oganizational structure, which affects focus and the nature of activities, but most of it has a lot of similarities with traditional church.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Okilydokilydoo.
I would agree that headship is to do with the husband within the uniquely unequivecably equal bonding nature of marrage, but leadership is either sex. But that is, as you say, open to interpretation.

[New_Wineskin]

Actually, this constituion is written to be flexible and to apply to whatever situation arises. However, yes, I believe that the house church/whole church structure most often would lead to the necessity of the leader being full time.

If you mean "full time" as in 24/7 , doesn't that mean that the person will either be financially well off as a prerequisite or having a spouse that takes care of the family financially ?

Also , what is the person doing that would necessitate "full time" ? We are talking about "house churches" here .

[M Paul]

If you mean "full time" as in 24/7 , doesn't that mean that the person will either be financially well off as a prerequisite or having a spouse that takes care of the family financially ?

Also , what is the person doing that would necessitate "full time" ? We are talking about "house churches" here .

Well, you know Cho's church was based on house meetings, and when I followed it somewhat 10 years ago, he had over half a million members, and his goal was to add another half million. There's no limit to the flexibility of a cell-unit structure. It can be very small or enormous. If someone prefers small, I don't think he/she should rule out other possibilities for different areas of the church.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

Well, you know Cho's church was based on house meetings, and when I followed it somewhat 10 years ago, he had over half a million members, and his goal was to add another half million. There's no limit to the flexibility of a cell-unit structure. It can be very small or enormous. If someone prefers small, I don't think he/she should rule out other possibilities for different areas of the church.

Regards,

Paul

Ok . Who is "Cho" ?

A "Cell unit church" ? *That* is what you have been discussing ?

Ok . I missed that . That is a denomination as far as *I* am concerned . I consider denominations or cell organizations to be opposite of what I like about the idea of house churches .

I have been wasting your time . I appologize . :blush:

[M Paul]

Ok . Who is "Cho" ?

A "Cell unit church" ? *That* is what you have been discussing ?

Ok . I missed that . That is a denomination as far as *I* am concerned . I consider denominations or cell organizations to be opposite of what I like about the idea of house churches .

I have been wasting your time . I appologize . :blush:

No, I haven't been discussing a cell-unit church. I've been discussing a house church/whole church structure as the biblical model, which has the cell-unit at its base. The house church is a cell-unit. All the cell-units coming together is the whole church, that is, the entire organization. It can be much like a denomination. I think I began this part of the conversation by noting I set out what I believe the biblical model is in an article on my web site. That article sets out the house church/ whole church structure.

When I followed Cho a bit 10 years ago, he was the pastor of the largest church in the world, in Korea. As I recall then, he had about 30 to 50 thousand people attend a service each Sunday, and about 450,000 meet in small groups in houses. The church may be a part of a denomination. Cho usually visits AoG churches when he comes to America.

Another example would be the Amish. They meet in small groups in houses each Sunday. However, they have a meeting house for whole church matters on special ocassions.

However, initially a house church may not be a part of a whole church. That would be a decision of the unit and a matter of growth. I believe they could function independently.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Well, you've got me thinking. It seems there are a number of people who would say that emerging applies to house church, and emergent to a new focus on mission. Whether that view can be sustained and will prevail, I don't know. But, maybe I should change the positions of the words on my banner, and put emerging on the upper part of the lower section, and emergent beneath it, rather than the reverse as now placed.

Regards,

Paul

Hmm--NP??

Kewl.
Now I've heard this word mission banded about in regards to emergent before... I can see where people are coming from... but to me the word "mission" is task-focussed, when house church and emerging and even emergent stuffs is about people. I realise I may be splitting hairs, but I'm balding, so when I see a hair, I dissect it to double the amount I have!

NP = No problem. Sorry, u not a gamer or messager?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Oh and M, I found an interesting link to do with emergent/emerging... begins looking at kesters book and then blogs from there... its on faithcommons...

http://faithcommons.org/node/314

[M Paul]

Kewl.
Now I've heard this word mission banded about in regards to emergent before... I can see where people are coming from... but to me the word "mission" is task-focussed, when house church and emerging and even emergent stuffs is about people. I realise I may be splitting hairs, but I'm balding, so when I see a hair, I dissect it to double the amount I have!

NP = No problem. Sorry, u not a gamer or messager?

Oh, I don't know if the people who think emergent is defined by mission really understand what they are talking about. However, with the cell sturcture the message and purpose of the church should become more relevant--and thus, there is a different focus and mission. But, as I've posted before, a redefinition of mission cannot by itself fulfill the definition of emergent--in my opinion. So, in this instance you're acting natural in your analyses, and not splitting hairs.

Thanks for the help with NP. Hmm--now gamer and messager????

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Oh and M, I found an interesting link to do with emergent/emerging... begins looking at kesters book and then blogs from there... its on faithcommons...

http://faithcommons.org/node/314

Hmm--I don't know. Let me know if you pick up a significant insight from it.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Odd response old bean.

[M Paul]

Odd response old bean.

Sorry. I may have missed something.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

The post I linked was a summary of a whole book! I can't really quote it as it is itself minimal!

Do you not visit faithcommons, M? I think its a house/emerging church of some repute.

[M Paul]

The post I linked was a summary of a whole book! I can't really quote it as it is itself minimal!

Do you not visit faithcommons, M? I think its a house/emerging church of some repute.

Ok, I think the layout of the web page confused me, and I formed an incorrect first impression. Do you like the applied systems approach as it may relate to church??? Did you notice this review and discussion didn't mention the Bible at all in its review of how applied systems can apply to church.

I had an association once with an organization run by an engineer who got a seminary degree and used an applied system. At the time, I had never heard of the concept. Did you see my post about having to go to Palm Springs to consult experts--yep, that was a real example from this organization. The applied system had no concept of treating people who needed help with dignity and respect, and the director had a rather shallow knowledge of the Bible, and no real interest in learning--because he had his applied system, that he enjoyed so much. He was very proud of the computer network he installed to manage the organization, but he had no awareness of the people around him, and their needs and desires. I could go on. Well, perhaps, there are better examples, but I want a biblical system--that's all.

I didn't know about this web site. I might look at it for a while, now that you've mentioned it. I take it, you are fond of it.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

It's helpful sometimes. Kiedo's online book is excellent... and there are a lot of varied posts, those centering around bible stuffs, and those that are just common-sense based (or not!) (erm, not that the bible isn't common-sense, of course!)... Kesters book doesn't go all nuts on the bible cos beeing biblical is just a lifestyle, not always just listing bible bits! I know what yer saying though, it's a shame when proffesionals try and take stuff over.. either we're following God, or not.

[M Paul]

It's helpful sometimes. Kiedo's online book is excellent... and there are a lot of varied posts, those centering around bible stuffs, and those that are just common-sense based (or not!) (erm, not that the bible isn't common-sense, of course!)... Kesters book doesn't go all nuts on the bible cos beeing biblical is just a lifestyle, not always just listing bible bits! I know what yer saying though, it's a shame when proffesionals try and take stuff over.. either we're following God, or not.

I'm not sure what you mean, "it's a shame when Professionals try to take over." It's true that one does not need a seminary degree to lead a church, or even a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but the professional cannot be eliminated from the church. There are times when a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew speak to issues, and then some one has got to know it. There are times when issues can only be decided with a knowledge of exegesis, hermenuetics, historigraphy, etc. We cannot throw away professional knowledge: but we must not let it get out of control (or that is, take control according to bias). And, when a non-professional leads the church, he/she should be doing so with expertise. When the Pharisees were amazed at the learning of the first Christians, it was because they had an equal level of knowledge but without formal training--it wasn't just because they had no formal training. Ignorance is not bliss in leading an organization.

(However, perhaps, I should mention that I am professionally trained).

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I think we completely missunderstand one another on occasion!!!

[M Paul]

I think we completely missunderstand one another on occasion!!!

That's very true. We've only conversed a short while, and we didn't have much experience in viewing prior posts in general. I'm still not sure I understand your positions, and I'm not sure about your preferences on language usage. Sorry, if I miss things or read too much into them. I have trouble in general reading on a monitor as opposeed to on paper. I had another hard reminder on that one just now with something I am writing and thought I had sucessfully revised.

Oh well--

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I see that you are more conservative (if there is such a thing) in your worldview than I, but the rest I'm not sure about. I believe that the church must die; you seem to believe that the structure needs re-organising... which is a form of death, i suppose, just not as extreme as what I'm feeling called to!

So I find myself agreeing with you where we share this desire to see church change; but disagreeing where you are promoting structure - all be it organic!

I don't think these views cause insurmountable problems! We just need to respect one another and bear our differences in mind!!!

I am encouraged by what you are seeking and bless you for it!!

Flan out.

[New_Wineskin]

I see that you are more conservative (if there is such a thing) in your worldview than I, but the rest I'm not sure about. I believe that the church must die; you seem to believe that the structure needs re-organising... which is a form of death, i suppose, just not as extreme as what I'm feeling called to!

So I find myself agreeing with you where we share this desire to see church change; but disagreeing where you are promoting structure - all be it organic!

I don't think these views cause insurmountable problems! We just need to respect one another and bear our differences in mind!!!

I am encouraged by what you are seeking and bless you for it!!

Flan out.

I consider that the idea of reorganization doesn't work . Luther tried it - didn't work but everyone else ( it seems) has decided to do the same thing . What they do is take out what they don't like and keep everything else as if everything else is automatically ok . Since people already consider that there is something wrong in the system , what is to say that the rest of the system was safe from the sickness of whatever was wrong with the part people were throwing out ? There is leaven in the system . Start from the ground up . Dig out the root and burn the land before starting the new thing . :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I consider that the idea of reorganization doesn't work . Luther tried it - didn't work but everyone else ( it seems) has decided to do the same thing . What they do is take out what they don't like and keep everything else as if everything else is automatically ok . Since people already consider that there is something wrong in the system , what is to say that the rest of the system was safe from the sickness of whatever was wrong with the part people were throwing out ? There is leaven in the system . Start from the ground up . Dig out the root and burn the land before starting the new thing . :)

I'm with you, Wino, but I am trying to relate to M on M's terms... I think his heart is in the same place... he's seeking to keep what is Biblical... which is his right and calling!

Wino, udamandog! Yo, yo, yo-itty-doodily.

[M Paul]

I believe that the church must die; you seem to believe that the structure needs re-organising... which is a form of death, i suppose, just not as extreme as what I'm feeling called to!


Calling for the church to die is not biblical. You are correct in your later post, saying that I am seeking a biblical form of the church. The form I am seeking is the same as Luther wanted, as I cite his writing on my web site: however, he said at that time there wasn't sufficeint interest to carry it out. He openly admited compromise, as the culture was not ready. A lot of people in the house church movement are saying it is ready now, and it is time to complete the Reformation.

I guess the part I don't understand is, how you feel about Scripture. This question can be answered very evasively, or should I say with a lot of care, by those who have a non-conservative view. If you want the church to die, however, that would indicate you understand the meaning and value of Scripture differently than I do. And, there are other things I've seen in you posts to further indicate this difference. However, I believe in communicating with everyone--and that God is found just about everywhere. I very much like the First Amendment of our Constitution on religion, which we actually got from the British in concept--and it promotes the idea that if we keep discussing and debating things, Jesus will make sure the truth wins. That's a lot of what the Reformation was all about.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

I'm with you, Wino, but I am trying to relate to M on M's terms... I think his heart is in the same place... he's seeking to keep what is Biblical... which is his right and calling!

Wino, udamandog! Yo, yo, yo-itty-doodily.

I wouldn't comment on their heart . I see nothing new in the approach - it is the same as what people have been doing for 500 years . The approach itself ( seeking to keep what is "biblical" ) is not even questioned ( or rarely questioned ) . That is why I suggest that something new be started from scratch - from the very beginning and not assuming *any* doctrine .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I wouldn't comment on their heart . I see nothing new in the approach - it is the same as what people have been doing for 500 years . The approach itself ( seeking to keep what is "biblical" ) is not even questioned ( or rarely questioned ) . That is why I suggest that something new be started from scratch - from the very beginning and not assuming *any* doctrine .

Are you persuading me or M? Cos I'm all over it, dog.
You not seen me church site?

Sorry to take up yer Thread, M.

[New_Wineskin]

Are you persuading me or M? Cos I'm all over it, dog.
You not seen me church site?

Sorry to take up yer Thread, M.

LOL!! Yeah . I forgot to whom I was writing . ;)

[M Paul]

I wouldn't comment on their heart . I see nothing new in the approach - it is the same as what people have been doing for 500 years . The approach itself ( seeking to keep what is "biblical" ) is not even questioned ( or rarely questioned ) . That is why I suggest that something new be started from scratch - from the very beginning and not assuming *any* doctrine .

If you are commenting to me rather than Flan, all I can say is, that this statement simply is too vague to me for a response.

Regards,

Paul

[Simionas]

I want also to add something. Emergent CHURCH, House CHURCH, Home CHURCH, Cell CHURCH, N.T.CHURCH???
But why do we use this term: CHURCH?
I know we have in mind the N.T. term: Ekklesia.
But why we don't use it instead of CHURCH? Church is a traditional term and his meaning is mostly A Building (or an organization like The Catolic church etc.). Confusing.
I think it's better to use the greek N.T. term or to find a proper translation like Congregation, Community or even group.





How well does the name hidden church apply to the emergent church?? I've been using Emergent, Emerging, House, Home, Non-Institutional, New Testament, Cell, and Cell-Unit Church. Then, I saw Unseen Church used the other day, and I thought that was good, and I saw Hidden at the same time.

Does anyone know of other names used for this church movement??? Invisible Church would be very bad, as it has a traditional theological meaning.

Well, what do you think of any of these terms??

Regards,

Paul

[Simionas]

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the Name of our Lord J.Ch., that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

[Simionas]

This unity is possible only through The Word, Sola Scriptura.

[Simionas]

Unity in Christ is through His Spirit of Truth.

[M Paul]

I want also to add something. Emergent CHURCH, House CHURCH, Home CHURCH, Cell CHURCH, N.T.CHURCH???
But why do we use this term: CHURCH?
I know we have in mind the N.T. term: Ekklesia.
But why we don't use it instead of CHURCH? Church is a traditional term and his meaning is mostly A Building (or an organization like The Catolic church etc.). Confusing.
I think it's better to use the greek N.T. term or to find a proper translation like Congregation, Community or even group.

I did some research on the word "church" once, and I probably have some notes on it laying around in the house somewhere. As I recall, it had to do with a German or Celtic variation of a biblical Greek word, and after it caught on, it just remained. However, in English we use "church" as an equivalent for "ekklessia." Words seem mostly to pick themselves--it's a cultural process, and once it's off, there isn't any changing it.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

I want also to add something. Emergent CHURCH, House CHURCH, Home CHURCH, Cell CHURCH, N.T.CHURCH???
But why do we use this term: CHURCH?
I know we have in mind the N.T. term: Ekklesia.
But why we don't use it instead of CHURCH? Church is a traditional term and his meaning is mostly A Building (or an organization like The Catolic church etc.). Confusing.
I think it's better to use the greek N.T. term or to find a proper translation like Congregation, Community or even group.

I don't use the term "church" except rarely and most of the time I am speaking/writing about The Church . The entities that refer to themselves as "churches" are merely exclusive clubs . I call them "groups" so that it stays away from "church" and it isn't offensive unless the people are extra religious .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Hey M, you asked me a few questions a while back that I didn't notice!!! I will try to give some perspective, if it's still important... I'm not sleeping a lot due to new baby, so forgive me if i dont make sense...

Calling for the church to die is not biblical. You are correct in your later post, saying that I am seeking a biblical form of the church.

Hmmmm Biblical... well, ultimately we killed our Church because the meetings and so on were no longer serving any purpose but to make us feel nice etc. So we all talked to God, others and one another about it. We all fed-back and the leaders suggested the idea of going Emergent. Again we all considered and prayed and feel that God called us to a desert period, like OT times, or like Jesus before his ministry... a time of loss, grief and silence from clutter that accompanies Church, in order to hear God and depend on the communities around us. This sense of loss is quie extreme at times, and there has always been th danger of us losing our distinctiveness as Church. We continue to meet relationally... down the pub, houses, gigs, etc... and online and pray/talk/the usuall stuff. But we rarely meet... we will be today to feed-back what has been happening since the Euthenising of our Church, and see where we are all at.
To say it is unBiblical is odd to me. Jesus told the RichMan to go sell all he had to follow him. Jesus asks no less of the RichChurch. If we are to truly depend on our communities, in order to find Jesus with them,and earn the right to ask them to depend on us and Jesus, then this death is so crucial.. Such an action cannot and should not be some idea that can be used to force people to do it. It is for people who are called to it. To die and sacrifice everything is a tough calling few feel. But it is a calling none-the-less - and obviously responding to HolySpirit, and being in the world are as Biblical as it gets!!!::: Love God, the others.
So, M, I respect your journey and realise it is what you are called to... I grew up in housechurch so I know how hard a thing it can be to attempt to understand your own set up in Biblical terms and to try to stan against christian opposition... it's a toughy!
You may question me all you wish about Bible-basis for Church Euthenising, and I will simply answer with parallels and metaphors and general truths from the Bible, but I have no verse to say it's the Biblical way! Because in one sense,nothing is! In that we a re all called to follow God and Church is just a mob of people doing that - its structure and content and organisation can be totally varied - and is - but as long as it is in right relationship with God, all is as it should be. I do agree with Wino that a little yeast spoils the dough - but that is not my motivation for Euthenising a dying body, my motivation is it is what God said to do! (and God says different things to different people in different situations.)

I guess the part I don't understand is, how you feel about Scripture. This question can be answered very evasively, or should I say with a lot of care, by those who have a non-conservative view.

The Bible is a bunch of stories, rules, poems, diaramas about people who have a relationship with God. It covers a huge chunk of history and a massive variety of people and worldviews and experiences. Everyone can find something that nacks up what thy believe, so obviously sayoing something is Biblical does not make it necissarily right. As in all things, we do that which God tells us to, we have HolySpirit and the mob of Church to guide us, as well as all the usuall stuff - leadership, prophecy, discernement... the Bible flows within all of this. If something seems right in HolySpirit and community with others who know Jesus, then it is right. If it does not echo any of the truths in the Bible, it is likely to be wrong.
In terms of inerrancy... the Bible is a whole heap of different styles of writing and so we approach each style in a different way... eg. a psalm in poetry and will edify, but may not help in moral decisions. It is always good to pray for guidance and find answers in Bible, but truth is self-evident and obvious to anyone in relationship with HolySpirit and in community with those who are too. Obviously, this does not exclude non-Church, because profound wisdom and truth is evident all over the place, but if it doesn't follow the essential truisms in the Bible, it is unlikely to be true. The reverse is not true, though. Just because it is in the Bible does not make it universally applicable. God's word is Jesus and Jesus delegates to HolySpirit who in turn directs us! The Bible is not God's word. It is people expressing what God does, says, feels, likes, dislikes, etc. God is without error, people are not. If there is error in the Bible, it is due to mistranslation or cultural blindness of humans, not God. What error? I'm not someone who finds any error, personally, but I am concerned by people who tell me things like women can't be leaders, when the verses they quote in English do not refelct the "originals". So if there is error, it's in translation and application. (oh, there are a few typos in Hebrew, some of the genealogies repeated in Lev/Duet (it's been a long time since I looked, the exact verses are in a folder in the attic if it's really that important to know!) are in the wrong order... but it really isn't that dig a deal!!!)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Oh, and the word CHURCH is just a normal greek word meaning MOB. I prefer MOB because it has absolutely no religious connotations or pretentious undertones!

[M Paul]

To say it is unBiblical is odd to me.

It's the way you express yourself. Saying that one form of the church must die for certain reasons is one thing. Saying the church must die is quite another. You make no qualification on the concept of church, and that has a lot of significance.

The Bible is a bunch of stories, rules, poems, diaramas about people who have a relationship with God.

That's one opinion maybe. But it may be much more. The Bible says we can know it is the word of God because of prophecy. What do you think of prophecy?? Let me give you some examples.

Isaiah 46:9,10 - " Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet to done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. " (KJV)

Let's review one prophecy that Christians maintain is extremely relevant to current events, the reestablishment of the nation of Israel in a single day. Note Ezekiel chp. 37, or in particular verse 22 (referencing the divided kingdoms of Israel, which resulted from the civil war following the death of Solomon): - "And I and will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms anymore at all." Note Isaiah 66:8 - "Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." Note that under the Persian decree of 445 B.C., that the Temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt, Israel only became again a political state within the Persian Empire in a single day, not a nation. Under the Maccabean revolt, Israel became a nation again, but not in a single day. Only by papers signed through the United Nations on May 15, 1948, did Israel become a nation again in a single day.

However, the Bible indicates some precise dating. Note the position outlined in THE COMING PRINCE by Sir Robert Anderson. Nehemiah 2:1 indicates Persian decree on rebuilding the Temple was issued in the month of Nissan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. The Talmud gives the day as the 1st of Nissan, and the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, UK, computed the date as March 14, 445 B.C. (For the following calculations, note that the Bible uses 360 day years - for example, Genesis 7:11, 24; 8:3,4; Esther 1:4; Revelation 11:2,3; 12:6; 13:5-7, cf. Daniel 7:25). Notes Daniel 9:24-27, which states that from the time of the commandment to restore Jerusalem, the Jews would have 70 weeks of years to be reconciled with God in regard to sin, which would involve the coming of the Messiah, who would be cut off after 69 weeks, before the events of the great tribulation in the last seven years would be played out. Note - 69 x 7 = 483 yrs., or 173,880 days in Biblical years, or April 6, 32, Palm Sunday. Or again - 3/14/445 BC to 3/14/32 = 476 yrs of 365 days, or 173,740 days + 116 leap days + 24 days from 3/14 to 4/6 = 173,880 days.

However, building on Anderson's work, scholars can also find the exact day of the recreation of Israel in Scripture. Ezekiel 4:3-6, indicates Israel would be punished 390 and 40 years. Jeremiah 25:11, indicates that the decree for the right of return would occur after 70 years. Only 360 years should have remained for the punishment at that time. However, only about 50,000 Jews returned then, but the great majority of them did not repent but remained in the Persian empire in the area of Iran and Iraq. Leviticus 26:17,18,21,23,24,27,28, indicates that if the Jews would not harken unto God, after he punished them by enemy conquest, he would multiply the penalty of their sin by seven. 360 x 7 = 2,520 years, or in 360 day years, 2483.8 years. (Note only one year between 1 BC and AD). 536 BC + 2483.8 = May 15, 1948.

Here's an interesting quote of Robert D. Culver, from CAN I TRUST THE BIBLE, pp 114,115.

"According to a well-known story, Frederick the Great of Prussia, a famous doubter, once asked his court chaplain, 'Give me in one word a proof of the truth of the Bible.' The answer was simply, 'The Jews.'

"God chose them not because they were big, good, or famous (Deut. 7:7, 8 ), but simply on account of His sovereign love. Moses predicted that from the time to time they would be scattered from their land on account of unbelief and disobedience (Deut. 28:36,63 ff.) In dispersion they would be 'an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword among all nations whither the Lord shall lead them' (Deut. 28:37). Yet they were not to be scattered 'to destroy them utterly' (see Lev. 26, esp. verses 43-46). They would later return. The northern tribes were so evicted about the 722 B.C. (II Kings 17), and the mass of them have remained in dispersion to the present day. In a series of deportations from 605 to 586 B.C., the Babylonians took away the Jewish inhabitants of southern Palestine. Yet according to Moses' general prediction they were to return, and according to the prophecies of Jeremiah this was to take place in about 70 years (Jer. 25:11; cf. Dan. 9:1,2). And they did return, as reported in Ezra, Nehemiah and several of the minor prophets.

"They were still in Palestine when Jesus was born. Yet He predicted that their holy Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed (Matt. 24:1, 2) and that they would again be scattered. These things all took place within about a century. Yet Jesus also said that the nation of Israel would endure to the very end of this age (Matt. 24:34); the apostles expected their kingdom to return (Acts 1:6); Paul predicts their future conversion and restoration to divine favor (Rom. II, esp. verse 26). The last book of the Bible states that the Jews as a people will yet behold Jesus their Messiah and mourn for him (Rev. 1:7), and a host of Old Testament predictions indicate that they shall again possess their land (see esp. Jer. 31).

"It is just possible that we are seeing in the well-known recent events in Jewry and in Palestine the fulfillment, in part, of these prophecies. 'Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall never slumber nor sleep' (Ps. 121:4). 'Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: if those ordinances depart from before me, saith the lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever' (Jer. 31:35, 36). So the history of Israel through the centuries is a story of remarkable prophecy and its remarkable fulfillment."

Everyone can find something that nacks up what thy believe, so obviously sayoing something is Biblical does not make it necissarily right.

Because at times there is ambiguity in the Bible, and because some people force their own interpretation on Scripture does not mean that the Bible is never unambiguous--so, we can't always get out of having to accept what the Bible is saying by noting it means different things to different people. It is the Word of God.

but truth is self-evident and obvious to anyone in relationship with HolySpirit and in community with those who are too.

That's not what Romans says. The Law was given so that we could know what sin is. Just one example. A lot of people don't find the Trinty self-evident. The Bible notes some truth is self-evident, and some needs to be communicated by the Word of God.

The Bible is not God's word.

Ahhh--here we are--you believe the Bible is not the Word of God. Then of course, your desire can be to kill the church. But, that's a different kind of Christianity, and not Christianity at all to those who believe we come to God through Scripture as his Word.

Oh, and the word CHURCH is just a normal greek word meaning MOB. I prefer MOB because it has absolutely no religious connotations or pretentious undertones!

At times the word can be used for a mob, but that is not that common and must be established by context. You won't find that context in the Bible. Here's my review of the word from my web site.

"The New Testament refers to the church with the Greek term ekklesia, literally meaning called out from, and idiomatically referring to a called out group, i.e. an assembly, gathering, fellowship, crowd. In the Greek Old Testament relied on by the first Christians, the Septuagint from the third century B.C., ekklesia translates the Hebrew qahal, which refers to all of Israel as the people of God. Coming out of Egypt, the entire Hebrew community assembled at the base of Mount Sinai to form a covenant with God. Note Deuteronomy 9:10: …according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly, cf. Exodus 19; Acts 7:37,38. Note also Judges 20:1,2: Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the LORD in Mizpeh. And the chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword.

In the New Testament also, the assembly refers to the people of God. Ekklesia is used for designating the universal, regional, local, or house church. I Corinthians 12:28: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly…. Ephesians 1:22: and gave him to be the head over all things to the church. Acts 9:31: Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria…. Galatians 1:2: And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia. Acts 13:1: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers…. I Thessalonians 1:1:…unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ…. Romans 16:5: Likewise greet the church that is in their house…. Colossians 4:15: Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house."

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Ahhh--here we are--you believe the Bible is not the Word of God. Then of course, your desire can be to kill the church. But, that's a different kind of Christianity, and not Christianity at all to those who believe we come to God through Scripture as his Word

I didn't say the Bible is not the word of God, I said it is not God's word, Jesus is!
Meaning: The Bible contains words by God - like prophecy and law for example - but is written in our words... obviously when I hear directly from God, that is more consistent to being God's words than when I have a hunch or something feels or seems correct in my spirit. The Bible contains both things.
We are not in total disagreement, I just emphasize things differently to you... we both see parts of Bible as being directly from God's mouth - like prophecy and law - and parts as being about God or God's people. Odd that you chose to talk about prophecies coming true - I have no beef with that at all! But then prophecy is in it's nature multi-event and can be more widely or specifically applied according to HolySpirit!
Please stop implying I'm not a Christian.

Did you not agree with my understanding of killing the church?
It's just what some of us are called to... the be rid of the structure for a grieving period before new forms emmerge. What did you think about my using Bible examples for that?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

We come to God through Jesus and his spirit.

[New_Wineskin]

We come to God through Jesus and his spirit.
Amen !! :)

I agree . Through the Spirit and Jesus - not the Scriptures . Abraham believed and was declared righteous - no Scriptures were involved . And , we are the recipients of the promises the Lord made to Abraham because of his belief . And , as Abraham , that belief is in what He tells us through the Spirit - not the written code .
Of course , He may speak through the Scriptures . But , He can speak through anything . He spoke through a burning bush and a donkey before .

[M Paul]

I didn't say the Bible is not the word of God, I said it is not God's word, Jesus is!
Meaning: The Bible contains words by God - like prophecy and law for example - but is written in our words... obviously when I hear directly from God, that is more consistent to being God's words than when I have a hunch or something feels or seems correct in my spirit. The Bible contains both things.
We are not in total disagreement, I just emphasize things differently to you... we both see parts of Bible as being directly from God's mouth - like prophecy and law - and parts as being about God or God's people. Odd that you chose to talk about prophecies coming true - I have no beef with that at all! But then prophecy is in it's nature multi-event and can be more widely or specifically applied according to HolySpirit!
Please stop implying I'm not a Christian.

Did you not agree with my understanding of killing the church?
It's just what some of us are called to... the be rid of the structure for a grieving period before new forms emmerge. What did you think about my using Bible examples for that?

Flan, I'm sorry but it's just not that clear to me what you are saying many times, and often, it does not seem biblical. I can't say you are not a Christian, but I can't say I understand you well enough yet to say that you are one, according to my conception of a Christian. You make statements at times that have me asking questions, that are difficult to understand from a traditional perspective of what is Scripture.

However, I have a suggestion--when you hear from God, test it with Scripture. That's how you know if it was from God, and that is biblical.

If you say you have a special understanding for what "killing the church" means -- fine, but I think you should expect to be misunderstood on that one. I disagree with your saying something that can be so easily mis-understood. I mean, I wouldn't do it.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

We come to God through Jesus and his spirit.

That much is true, but Romans chp. 10 adds a lot of explanation to the process, including -- "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Regards,

Paul

[AllTalkNoAction]

We receive Jesus when we receive the Holy Spirit:-
Ro:8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And you know when that happens:-
Joh:14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

It *began* at Pentecost and continues the same today.

The baptism in the Spirit, speaking in tongues is God's way into his church, there's only one church.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Flan, I'm sorry but it's just not that clear to me what you are saying many times, and often, it does not seem biblical. I can't say you are not a Christian, but I can't say I understand you well enough yet to say that you are one, according to my conception of a Christian. You make statements at times that have me asking questions, that are difficult to understand from a traditional perspective of what is Scripture.

However, I have a suggestion--when you hear from God, test it with Scripture. That's how you know if it was from God, and that is biblical.

If you say you have a special understanding for what "killing the church" means -- fine, but I think you should expect to be misunderstood on that one. I disagree with your saying something that can be so easily mis-understood. I mean, I wouldn't do it.

Regards,

Paul

Exactly! As church, we are finding that Christian's struggle to grasp what God has called us to, but the non-C's get it just fine. Which is one of the distinctives of euthenizing church... interdependence and dispersal - its percieved weakness is its calling and strength.

Paul, ultimately a christian is someone whom Jesus recognises.
Also, things like recieving HolySpirit and living in relationship with God are factors. Of course it's good to weigh things up with scripture, but essentially if something doesn't seem correct to you and your faith-community, that is more reliable simply because the Bible can be used to back almost anything up! But we can differ there of course. Otherwaise, why have HolySpirit?

Jesus came to empower individuals so that they would take responsibilty for their actions, for each other and God's creation... and then choose to lay themselves down for God.

I say kill the church because I live amongst those whom God is reaching - the non-church - and so our church lived interdependently with them. Such a thing is a different understanding of Bible, and the nature of God - in some ways - but is not non-Chirstian or even unBiblical.

M, we all feel called to lay everything down for the sake of engaging with and serving the world, in Jesus footsteps. You and many others do this how you see fit, and my church - and many others - do it this way. Simple.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

That much is true, but Romans chp. 10 adds a lot of explanation to the process, including -- "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Regards,

Paul

ASIDE: hearing = akoe = physically hearing, listening, involving ears.
word = rhema =


1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word

2) any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning

3) speech, discourse

4) what one has said

5) a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)

6) an utterance

7) a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative

8) concerning some occurrence

9) subject matter of speech, thing spoken of

10) so far forth as it is a matter of narration

11) so far as it is a matter of command 12) a matter of dispute, case at law

The original Paul, doesn't use Torah or Bible (or equivalent Greek) for the word WORD! He is very specific in his non-specificness - not one of its 12 possible translations refrs to Torah or even Gospel! He doesn't even use euaggelion from the verse before (which also does not refer to Torah, as I'm sure you know) he uses a vague word for anything that is from God. Not the Torah, etc. Anything - which obviously includes this! My conclusion is that faith comes from recognising that which is from God (literally hearing it if you want to get hardcore) from anything.

With, of course was my origianl point, you are a christian because you know God and simultaneous recognise the person you know in what is around you and are recognised by God.

I'm not picking a fight, M. I'm just saying that your reading of scripture doesn't ring true to me, you can feel free to use this verse as a reflection of the truth God has shown you, but not to back your case up, because it doesn't - except for refering to the Law of God, which is a term that would negate most of the Bible!

We believe that which our concience - as being renewed by Christ - lets us, even in our interpretation of Bible.

Again, I'm not wanting to win an arguement here Paul, but you used a verse in a way that I felt doesn't support it. Please don't think I'm being hostile.

[M Paul]

ASIDE: hearing = akoe = physically hearing, listening, involving ears.
word = rhema =


1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word

2) any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning

3) speech, discourse

4) what one has said

5) a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)

6) an utterance

7) a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative

8) concerning some occurrence

9) subject matter of speech, thing spoken of

10) so far forth as it is a matter of narration

11) so far as it is a matter of command 12) a matter of dispute, case at law

The original Paul, doesn't use Torah or Bible (or equivalent Greek) for the word WORD! He is very specific in his non-specificness - not one of its 12 possible translations refrs to Torah or even Gospel! He doesn't even use euaggelion from the verse before (which also does not refer to Torah, as I'm sure you know) he uses a vague word for anything that is from God. Not the Torah, etc. Anything - which obviously includes this! My conclusion is that faith comes from recognising that which is from God (literally hearing it if you want to get hardcore) from anything.

With, of course was my origianl point, you are a christian because you know God and simultaneous recognise the person you know in what is around you and are recognised by God.

I'm not picking a fight, M. I'm just saying that your reading of scripture doesn't ring true to me, you can feel free to use this verse as a reflection of the truth God has shown you, but not to back your case up, because it doesn't - except for refering to the Law of God, which is a term that would negate most of the Bible!

We believe that which our concience - as being renewed by Christ - lets us, even in our interpretation of Bible.

Again, I'm not wanting to win an arguement here Paul, but you used a verse in a way that I felt doesn't support it. Please don't think I'm being hostile.

Well, we could debate the Greek, and go into other sections of the Bible to review what the apostle Paul means by the Gospel to be preached from verses 15 and 16. However, it really does appear to me, that when you say you are Christian, you mean some kind of new Christian--who has a new way to interpret the Bible, and therefore, a new theology, and as far as the Bible being the ultimate authority for living, well wouldn't the new method of intepretation mean that what Scripture says is relative, and people can decided for themselves according to what is self-evident???

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

john 14:26 - But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.



this is new?

God is the ultimate authority on living, and we have God in us as HolySpirit.

[M Paul]

this is new?

God is the ultimate authority on living, and we have God in us as HolySpirit.

This is an evasive response to my post. What may be new is your use and interpretation of the verse.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

LOL. We must do what seems right to our conciences, which are being daily transfomed by HolySpirit. Refer to Bible, by all means, but ultimately our relationship is with God, not a book! How's that for clear?

[M Paul]

LOL. We must do what seems right to our conciences, which are being daily transfomed by HolySpirit. Refer to Bible, by all means, but ultimately our relationship is with God, not a book! How's that for clear?

If it's clear, then it is a rejection of Scripture as the ultimate authority in life. That is not a traditional Protestant view, and it could mean almost anything--including the possibility that you advocate a new kind of Christianity. Thus, we could continure to experience communication problems.

Well, how about salvation?? Do you have a blood covenant with Christ?? Is he the son of God whose shed blood covers your sin and grants to you eternal life?? (If yes, I might ask where you got that idea??)

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Yes. In the Bible, which has God's words in it. You seem to assume that I advocate rejecting scripture. I do not. God is the ultimate authority in life, and many of God's ideals are expressed in the Bible.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

A Biblical truth is recognisable as such because of discernement/revelation thru HolySpirit. It is not essentially true just because it is interpreted as so in the Bible. Is that any clearer?

And we are ALL saved from sin.

[New_Wineskin]

God is the ultimate authority in life, and many of God's ideals are expressed in the Bible.

That is a good way of putting it . :)

[New_Wineskin]

A Biblical truth is recognisable as such because of discernement/revelation thru HolySpirit. It is not essentially true just because it is interpreted as so in the Bible. Is that any clearer?


Another good point . :)

[M Paul]

Yes. In the Bible, which has God's words in it. You seem to assume that I advocate rejecting scripture. I do not. God is the ultimate authority in life, and many of God's ideals are expressed in the Bible.

I said your concept of the authority of Scripture seems to be different than the traditional beliefs of Protestant Christianity. For instance, II Peter 1:20, 21 says--Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptue is of any private interpretation. For the prochecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. You seem to be saying a person can interpret the Bible as he/she wants. And, that there is some other authority that can be used to overrule what Scripture says--like self-evident truth--but how can I or anyone tell exactly how you establish authority: you don't go into much detail. There may be times when the Bible is ambiguous, but not always, and not on major doctrines, or on salvation.

How about this part of my last post. Would you rather not answer?? If so, does your preference not to answer have something to do with how you regard Scripture??

"Do you have a blood covenant with Christ?? Is he the son of God whose shed blood covers your sin and grants to you eternal life?? (If yes, I might ask where you got that idea??)"

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

A Biblical truth is recognisable as such because of discernement/revelation thru HolySpirit. It is not essentially true just because it is interpreted as so in the Bible. Is that any clearer?

And we are ALL saved from sin.

Yeah but, does logic or grammar have anything to do with it?? If someone says that the Holy Spirit told him/her to interpret the Bible to mean that Jesus only became the son of God through his own efforts, (I could name a sect that does so interpret that way), would you say that's fine, cause it's just a matter of what passages mean to individuals according to how they see them??

And, what if someone says we are all saved, but the blood of Christ isn't that significant, because he/she discerned through the Holy Spirit that its other things that really count--then by the authority of what is self-evident or whatever else there is outside of Scripture, that is ok???

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Ah, that's why church is so important. By that I mean people who follow Jesus! And my own discernment would of course ring alarm bells with some of those examples... but the Bible is fairly clear about who Jesus was and is... and so is HolySpirit for that matter!

Try not to jump to extreme conclusions when faced with the prospect of the preisthood of all believers outworked in this fashion!

Perhaps our differences stem from this:
I view the Bible as a guide, showing trends and general principles that God has laid out, with a few exact proceedures thrown in, such as love God, others and give to the needy till it hurts! And the fact that Jesus broken sins power for all for ever. When living specifics, I would rather not follow exactly what the NT Christian's did in every detail because they were so very, very different to me... but ther are genral princliples that work very well.

This is maybe where we vary in regards to Church. My Church - and others like us - have a calling from God to explore Jesus and community in the ways that we are...

and so do you and others like you! In terms of Chrch, you seem to be looking to the Bible for a blue-print. Is this true of how you use the Bible generally?

[M Paul]

Ah, that's why church is so important. By that I mean people who follow Jesus! And my own discernment would of course ring alarm bells with some of those examples... but the Bible is fairly clear about who Jesus was and is... and so is HolySpirit for that matter!

Try not to jump to extreme conclusions when faced with the prospect of the preisthood of all believers outworked in this fashion!

Perhaps our differences stem from this:
I view the Bible as a guide, showing trends and general principles that God has laid out, with a few exact proceedures thrown in, such as love God, others and give to the needy till it hurts! And the fact that Jesus broken sins power for all for ever. When living specifics, I would rather not follow exactly what the NT Christian's did in every detail because they were so very, very different to me... but ther are genral princliples that work very well.

This is maybe where we vary in regards to Church. My Church - and others like us - have a calling from God to explore Jesus and community in the ways that we are...

and so do you and others like you! In terms of Chrch, you seem to be looking to the Bible for a blue-print. Is this true of how you use the Bible generally?\

It appears to me you actually prefer to be somewhat vague about your beliefs. It also appears to me now, that you are a Neo-Orthodox. I don't really know, but from what you are saying, it seems that way.

Neo-Orthodoxy was a whole new way of viewing Scripture and Christ following WWI. They called themselves Christians, and society to some extent considers this religion a form of Christianity. However, by all standards in the Christian church for the preceeding 1900 years, it is not Chrisitianity. If you want to say that it is, you have every right to do so. If traditional Christianity wants to say that it is not, they have every right to do so also.

I have a traditional view of Scripture. It is the Word of God, and I uphold everything that implies--and at times that might include blue prints, such as considering the imitation of the image of Christ as my goal in life. I also believe that someone only is Christian by having a blood covenant with Christ (meaning the Messiah, the son of God, the second person of the Trinity, the first person miraculously resurrected from the dead), that his shed blood covers his/her sin and confers eternal life, and that only the blood of Christ saves. I believe the Holy Spirit leads a person to Christ, and that on making the blood covenant, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, imparting regeneration, a new person. If a person does not have the blood covenant, the Holy Spirit does not indwell him/her.

It appears you do not confess a blood covenant with Christ. If so, by your definition you are a Christian, but by a strict interpretation of Scripture and the traditional view of the universal Christian church, you are not. In that case of not confessing the blood of Christ, the view I've set out is not meant to insult you in any way, but merely to address the matter in the course of fact and logical definition.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

And the fact that Jesus broken sins power for all for ever.

It appears you do not confess a blood covenant with Christ.

Where did I say that I don't do that thing?
But, it's semantic, old bean! I am a Christian because I know Jesus, love him and follow him. Don't really get why you would think otherwise.
We are saved because Jesus recognises us, and because we give 'till it hurts.

[M Paul]

[/color]



Where did I say that I don't do that thing?
But, it's semantic, old bean! I am a Christian because I know Jesus, love him and follow him. Don't really get why you would think otherwise.
We are saved because Jesus recognises us, and because we give 'till it hurts.

The blood of Christ is not a point to be ambiguous about, and saying that one has a blood covenant with Christ can be done quite simply, without a review of the formal aspects of semantics. So, if someone would rather say it's semantics rather than speak in simple terms, the lack of being straight forward in communication seems to indicate something.

However, we are saved by the blood of Christ--that may entail other things about our life, but those don't change what is the basis of salvation. The Bible is explicit, unless one decides that interpretation is a subjective matter, and that by certain principles of semantics we can make it mean various things.

However, this gets into another point I was making previously. Does calling the house church movement emergent mean a change in theology for Christianity, or are people playing games??? Because the movement is emerging, people say that it is Post-Modern, which is the emerging culture. And, the cell-unit structure does resemble some things in the Post-Modern culture, such as a focus on small units, on different forms of communication, on having a different focus. But, does that association with Post-Modernism mean also there is a change in theology. Well, liberals would like to take advantage of the popularity of the home church movement to say --yes, it means different theology. But then, the theology they epouse is that of Modernism, nothing Post-Modern. And then, the congregationalists who oppose the house church movement say, see it's hypocrisy. Actually, this part of the emergent church discussion is a lot of baloney, IMHO.

However, I am a conservative Christian through and through--in that I believe the Bible is the Word of God, inspired and inerrant, and that the principles of logic, grammar, historigraphy, etc. apply to its objective interpretation. Semantics can be a game.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I still fail to see how something can be called objective - be it Bible translation, or any aspect of faith - without HolySpirit. Only God is truly objective because God is able to be totally removed from our human experience while being simultaneously pivotal to it! Therefore what seems right in relationship with HolySpirit is objectively right while being intrapersonal.

Your point about a different Theology is an interesting one, M. It is something I have been considering of late due to certain questions I have had the more my relationship with God has developed. Particularly in regards to whom is saved and God's response to sin. So, is House Church to be Theologically different? I wouldn't have thought it needs to be, given that it still follows fairly traditional ideas of leadership and structure, in that many house churches still seem to be top-down, leader-led, requiring active and passive members. Because its style can be more reflective of its culture, this implies a post-modernity, I suppose, being re-constructive in nature.

Emergent is bottom-up, from and in its culture, rather than reflective of it. Perhaps it's theology could be said to be going that way too! Not sure, really, I just know that I have similar chats to other emergent types and there is a distinctly unconservative theology! Still Christian, thoug. Or at least, following Jesus!

M, thank you for letting me shread yer thread... I do hope some others contribute when it's needed! I appreciate your perspective because in many ways you represent much of where I used to be - I grew up in House Church with a fairly conservative understanding of Bible etc. This is not meant to be condescending - I am in no way implying that I am on a higher path in my Christian life! ('m sure you wouldn't believe that I was for one minute anyway!!!) So, thank you M. I really feel for you if you get a hard time from people who are basically scared of not having all the silly creature-comforts Church has become! I pray you Church it with people whom you can teach and learn from and build a genuine community that reflects Jesus and serves all.

Peace out.

[M Paul]

I still fail to see how something can be called objective - be it Bible translation, or any aspect of faith - without HolySpirit. Only God is truly objective because God is able to be totally removed from our human experience while being simultaneously pivotal to it! Therefore what seems right in relationship with HolySpirit is objectively right while being intrapersonal.

Well, the Bible is written with language, and that has objective aspects to it. Let me try an analogy.

If I enter into a legally binding contract, and then break its conditions and find myself in court, I won't be able to use as a defense, that language is ambiguous, and really it means different things to different people. The court will hold that first the language will be examined by principles of interpretation, linguistics, logic, grammar, common definitions and experience, to determine if a clear meaning can be established for the contract. If obligations are determined with clarity, and factually I have not kept them, then I must face the responsibility of my actions. If the language is found as being unclear after the application of principles of interpretation, the contract will be held non-enforcable.

Some things in the Bible are ambiguous. Some things are stated so many times and in so many ways, that by the principles of interpretation ambiguity simply cannot be held to be found. And, the day is coming when we will all stand in God's court of decision.

Take care now, Flan, and God bless you,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

True, but it is still down to personal opinion which of the more legal words in the Bible to adhere to... you know, the usual argument, like "stone a rebelious child".

Essentially we agree in that the Bible is important, but I seem to value HolySpirit more than you. Is that fair?

[GlobalNomad1960]

What about "Living Stones Church"?