The Petra Zone

Alright I promised to stop hijacking Matthew RJ's Earth Day thread, however I am still in a pugnacious mood so I'll throw out ecclesiology-doctrine of the Church.

I admit to neglecting this more than I should in the past, but it seems we are feeding on ashes and starving. As I said in the other thread, we need the body and the blood of Christ! The more I have thought about it, the more I want the gospel proclaimed in the word preached and in Communion/Lord's Supper/etc.

Your essay question is: what is the role of the Church (the institutional church that is) in the lives of Christians and in the world? Discuss fully.

My church does not follow a church calendar (they are mostly Baptists), though that's not to say I wouldn't belong to one that did if that were an option. We do frequently observe parts of it such as lent ecumenically as a community however. I have to say this is less than in the past since a few of the churches that do this have shut down though The RC church usually makes a good effort to keep them going.

What about Communion anyway? I kind of lean toward communion every week (because in some churches the only time you really need to show up is on Communion Sunday) but I don't think this is ultra common practice.

I guess what your view of what Communion actually is/does has to come into play. I think that many churches don't have communion too frequently because it has lost it's meaning. In the early Church Eucharist was the centrepiece of worship, and I think that was not such a bad idea. Certainly better than a million hours of Praise and Worship songs.

It's probably not surprising that I don't hold to the holiness teachings. Still people will always try to find ways to climb up to see the Deus Nudus regardless of their tradition.

I have talked to enough Christians who will say the reason we have Communion is because we're told we're supposed to do it. To me that is evidence that there is a major disconnect there. If that's the only reason we have for it of course some are going to see holding communion every week as redundant. There is a reason Jesus likened his blood and body to food and drink yet I don't think it is spelled out clearly enough in some churches.

Yes be perfect as the father is perfect, the most frightening indictment in the scriptures. Knowing myself as well as I do, I am well aware that I am incapable of even coming close to that.

Any holiness we have of course comes from Christ, this is both in justification and in sanctification. We must remind ourselves that he is the author and perfecter of faith (that ties in nicely to Communion also).

Indeed. Anyone have some thoughts they want to throw out on the subject? Things you like/hate about the state of the church? Where your church gets it right/wrong? Come on now.

I've grown dissatisfied with the institutionalization of my own church. I don't have any real motivation to go serve people, to go love people, coming from my church. From my church I get instruction and doctrine. We love to send missionaries all over the world and send our youth on two-week vacat...er...mission trips. But not to the inner city. That would be too scary, plus its full of black people, prostitutes and possible homos, who don't belong in my white-bread suburb/rural church.

Soul-winning seems to trump personally relating the gospel of Jesus Christ to people in a living way that they can identify with. This isn't just an issue with my "home" church. I see it in a lot of the ones I visit and encounter.

I don't buy into 98% of what the emerging church is pushing/suggesting, but I think they have this right on, at least in a one-on-one way.

But I'm trying not to be cynical.

Communion...I've been to churches that do it every week and churches that have to do it every third Sunday, unless its a missions conference, then its the fourth Sunday. Unless that's baby dedication Sunday, then we bump it to next month and have two. The Cracker and Grape Juice seems to be an agenda item. Something to be scheduled, rather than an intimate Communion with Jesus Christ.

I suck at not being cynical.

Sometimes on Sunday mornings, I'd like to just want to stand out in the street outside the shelter and give out hot chocolate or something, and talk to people, and witness in that way. I'd like to see more practical training to love people, rather than "sell" them religion with goofy tracts and four-point plans.

Have I mentioned that I may be cynical?

I hate that abusive non-denominational pastors have no oversight by any organization or body to point the finger of Nathan at them, and speak hard truths to them in love that cannot be ignored.

What do I like...the music. The charity. The genuine heart for the world and the lost. That (most) churches are not businesses.

I think we all go through periods of disillusionment with the visible church, I know I did. However it's good to remind ourselves that the church is made up of a bunch of rotten sinners-people just like me. People who've received the same grace I have, who make mistakes like I do. And there are always tares-given that it will never look quite like it should. Our hope is not in the perfections of the Church any more than such in ourselves, but the perfections of Christ who will reign in his church and will conform her to his likeness. Semper reformada and all. We may not see it yet but we trust he is greater than our hearts. Not to say that is simple, or that some Christians and some churches don't in fact make it very difficult.

I still think that the Church must serve Christians and it is Christians who turn and serve their neighbour. If failing, then I am failing too. However I also think that depends on what the Church is feeding it's sheep. If it's ashes, they are not strong enough to serve, rather they wither and die. That is why Christians need the Church. I wonder how many Christians think they don't need the Church because their Churches are not feeding them-so what's the difference if I'm in the Church building on Sunday or not?

Communion is a case in point, do these Christians view this as the body and the blood or something we are supposed to do because that's what we've been told? That is something that I have thought about frequently of late-have we gutted these gifts of their meaning to our detriment? How many Christians are taught by their churches that believing the gospel is a one time event that they can now "move on" from? And so they starve.

We would probably disagree on application but I also think Matthew RJ was right when he said we as a church must understand and revere God's holiness-would we give him vacation days then? Would we think "Jesus won't mind if we put him off a week or two?" Would we treat him as if we are doing him a favour by showing up? Aren't we just proving we don't really get it?

Emergent Christianity I think highlights one of the major problems in the church in the fact that many in that stream claim to love community yet despise authority. I don't think there can be one without the other. As it has been said, no one despises human authority unless he first despises God's authority and I think that such an attitude of individualism plagues the Western church as a whole. This is why there is this despising, a lack of accountability, no church discipline, etc. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. I know I am guilty of it, so I am not pointing any fingers that don't point right back. I think that is something we need to wrestle with.

Numbers evangelism is rather scary, no matter how well intentioned it may be. I can see why people do it given their theology-so what I guess the only option there is is to teach them better theology. I disagree that the remedy is to simply tell them what to do, they need to be told what has been done for them. It's probably not a big surprise that I view the gospel as the cure for both legalism and laziness. I am lazy. Nothing makes me feel worse about being lazy than the gospel.

Somewhat tangential, in terms of relating the gospel to the world, I think probably the most difficult thing to convince people of today is their depravity, yet there is no relating to the gospel without that fact. How do we do this?

I can say the problems we chafe against are often in us, in our weakness and sinfulness and the same in our brothers. Yet God uses the foolish to shame the wise and his power is made perfect in weakness. In the end all glory will be unto him, for his triumph over the world and in the church, that he redeemed us and loved us and bore with us in spite of ourselves.

I know I know, enough with the babbling.

Can I just add that I find baby dedications ridiculous? Anyone else? You're Baptists!! BE Baptists!

I'll collect some thoughts from my scatterbrain for you. Soon, I hope.

Although I may be pounded on this board, I would like to respectfully submit that perhaps disillusionment with your church or denomination might be the working of the Holy Spirit urging you to look for the true Church. The Church that can trace its origins all the way back to the apostles. Dare I say it? Yes, the Catholic Church.

In my mind, the causes for the Reformation were important issues that needed to be addressed by the Church (and later were). However, reformers should have worked within the Church for change instead of leaving it, which is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can't understand how anyone can believe that this splintering and dividing of Christians is led by the Holy Spirit. Yet every Protestant denomination and even non-denomination believes it is led by the Spirit.

I attended several Protestant churches during an approximately 10 year span when I left the Catholic Church. I did find a relationship with Jesus there. I know now that I could have found Him in the Catholic Church if I had known where to look. I attended services that moved me greatly; heard sermons that convicted me of areas of sin in my life. But too often I felt I was missing something. That many churches were more interested in putting fannies in the seats and building bigger churches; that it was more about what is in it for me than about worshipping God. That churches seemed to compete for audiences by having the better praise band or the most youth programs. But most of all I missed the mystery, the reverence, the presence I felt just by being in a Catholic Church. I missed the sense of duty to the poor, of seeing Christ in everyone; the urging to live simply and self-sacrifice. And most of all, I realized I missed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If you are so inclined, here is a great piece that explains it better than I can.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucha ... rist_4.htm

Sometimes when I think about Christianity and the many attacks it seems to be under, I think about the Native Americans. The only success they had in stopping the annihilation of their people occurred when they were able to put aside tribal differences and work together. Unfortunately for them, they could not stay unified. Divide and conquer works, and no one knows it better than Satan.

Well, certainly I'd like to refamiliarize myself with early church history. My desire is to study those early churches, compare that to where I am today, and see what was lost or forgotten or paved over, and see what could be an enhancement to the early churches. Not to say they did everything right...but for comparison's sake.

You might want to read "Evangelicals and Traditions" by D.H. Williams (Paternoster Press). This is part 2 of the Deep Church series. I think it could provide some sort of overview of what has been lost through the ages.

However, reformers should have worked within the Church for change instead of leaving it, which is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually the Reformers did try for change within the church, hence the name Reformers. The council of Trent Anathematized the solas and the heart of the Gospel. It was as much a case of being thrown out as leaving.

While I have no doubt there are also many true believers within Rome, according to the hierarchy there is no reconciliation between us. I am already a hopeless apostate under their curse because I believe my salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone and is revealed in Scripture alone. So until Rome repeals Trent, I am simply not allowed to belong to that church. They have not done this yet so the problem has not been solved. I am not of the type that think everything Rome does is wrong, that's foolish-but that difference is insurmountable.

However I will say I have long felt that many Evangelicals are for all intents and purposes doctrinally closer to Rome than they are to the Reformation. It is a logical step for them to go that way.

I hope that what I have said about Communion has not lead some to believe I advocate real presence. I don't as I think it conflates the two natures (and in the case of Rome never allows the work of Christ to be finished even though he has declared it to be-though I'd be a little more willing to tolerate the Lutheran version of such-a little). I don't see physical omnipresence. This does not make it any less a reality because it is spiritual. As Jesus said at the end of the passage relating to this, my words are spirit and life.

Church history is definitely interesting and it gives us perspective into our own time and place as well as that of our brothers and sisters of the past, as long as we don't get caught up in cherry picking the things we like out of it (I can tell you I am darn tempted to do just that many times). That isn't tradition either.

I think we should rip the confessional churches back from those fricking liberals myself. I mean obviously they're wasting them.

And they're all like 80 now anyway so it shouldn't be that hard.

charl wrote:Alright I promised to stop hijacking Matthew RJ's Earth Day thread, however I am still in a pugnacious mood so I'll throw out ecclesiology-doctrine of the Church.

When aren't you in a pugnacious mood? While puking after listening to cheesy 19th-c hymns? After all, apparently you're indifferent to that or something.

Your essay question is: what is the role of the Church (the institutional church that is) in the lives of Christians and in the world? Discuss fully.

I don't know much about official doctrines of the church; in fact, I'm woefully undereducated about things Christian. So this is all quite opinionated and a load of hooey at the end of the day.

In my opinion, the purpose of the church first and foremost is to safeguard the gospel (as exemplified in 1Co 15.3-5 and other passages), and not only for the "lost" but also (perhaps especially) for the church. My main frustration with church is that the gospel is rarely, if ever preached, by any means, whether from the pulpit or through the Eucharist, and when it is preached, it is rarely complete.

(Parenthetically, let me stipulate two things. First, the gospel is not about man's response to God, unless you are willing to admit that the response is not belief as much as it is thoughtful praise, i.e. praise with understanding [Ps 47.7]. The gospel is the person and the work of Jesus Christ, not the person and the work of me. Second, we are to immerse ourselves in the gospel as we grow. The Christian walk is the study of the gospel, not a study of moral living.)

I think as a related subject, the church should promote true worship among its congregants.

When the Israelites worshiped the calf, Aaron proclaimed a feast to Jehovah (Ex 32.5)--not some idol. Heretical worship is idolatry; true worship begins, I think, with a proper understanding of the gospel.

I don't have a particular regulatory principle of my own, but I generally dislike the over-emotionalism of P&W because it's very rarely backed by sound theology. We should be emotional because of truth, not (solely) because of music.


I've tried to edit this some to keep the length down and make it more cogent. But I probably failed.

charl wrote:I guess what your view of what Communion actually is/does has to come into play. I think that many churches don't have communion too frequently because it has lost it's meaning. In the early Church Eucharist was the centrepiece of worship, and I think that was not such a bad idea. Certainly better than a million hours of Praise and Worship songs.

My church holds communion once monthly, and they do it in the evening in a special service. I have mixed feelings about this.

In general, I think it gives us a bit more time to prepare ourselves for partaking--there's a bit more time for self-examination (it is a serious occasion, and not one to be taken lightly), and the focus is entirely directed at the taking of communion. This is great.

I would prefer to be able to do this in the mornings, however, which are better attended (though it should be said that those who miss communion have only themselves to blame for not making the time for it), and I would prefer to do it more often. In the past, it wasn't as important to me to take it often, but I have begun to appreciate it more recently in my own walk and studies.


My own opinions about the real presence are still in flux. Historically it seems as though the doctrine of the trinity was well accepted at the same time the real presence was, but I don't think either was articulated as exactly as they are today.

I agree that the Roman perspective of communion denigrates the work of Christ--his work is finished, and in fact was finished before time began (the real sense of Jn 19.30), and it stands finished. But I am not persuaded that the taking of communion should be considered symbolic in the "empty" sense.

Let me throw some things out there for discussion. The church I attend now, and also the one I grew up in, uses jewish matzah as the bread. Our pastor always points out the characteristics that the matzah has had to have historically, and how some of those characteristics can be symbolic of Christ, yet jewish people don't even know why the bread must be made that way. He points out that it is similar to what Christ would have used. Some churches I've been in use regular bread, or perhaps pieces of roll. I find it more meaningful to use what Christ used. Some churches take the position that since scripture doesn't command the use of a particular bread for communion, they are not going to use the unleavened bread. Personally I have gotten a sense of arrogance about it. Essentially they are going to do anything that scripture doesn't explicitly state not to do. I'm talking about all areas of life, not just what bread to use for communion. Thoughts?
Something else: One church I visited did something very different from the usual scripture/pray/distribute the bread/partake, scripture/pray/distribute the cup/partake. Someone got up and read scripture and challenged everyone to think through their own life and what issues they need to deal with, and if they have issues with other people that can't be resolved immediately, or they have issues they are refusing to take care of, they should strongly consider not taking communion. Then the pastor got up said a few things, and instructed that the communion elements would be distributed together and that people could then remain in the sanctuary as long as they needed to, and partake of the elements whenever they felt they were ready. I thought that it was an interesting way to put a focus on getting your life in check and not just participating in a ritual.
As for the gospel, what do you believe is the true gospel, or true salvation? Does true faith in Christ equal a changed life? Is it reasonable to suggest that someone who professes Christ at some point but never bears fruit may in fact not really have faith at all? Was Judas saved, or does the presence of Satan in his life and his evil heart indicate that he was not saved at all, and by extension that anyone who claims but Christ but shows no evidence may not be saved?

GMan