The Bible and the Church
Ok, today's thought for debate comes from comment number 9 in an old post on Scott McKnight's Jesus Creed blog. I don't usually read this blog, but Burly is a big fan because it explains to some degree the purpose and meaning of the emergent church movement, which I enjoy reading about. Anyway, I was reading some old posts and I came across a comment that was kind of random (McKnight barely addressed the question the guy raised), but I thought it was directed at a larger question I've asked my self before: "how much of the story of the early church, especially as told in Acts, is God's prescription for conducting church, and how much is simply historical information about how they did it then?" If you did not follow the link above, go ahead and read McKnight's post and comment 9 and then click continue reading below to read what I'm thinking.
Ok, it seems to me that the commentor (it that a word?) argues that the structure of the early church prescribes a particular structure within the church. The Bible is certainly the word of God and in many instances where the early church leaders were creating the structure of the church, they are under the influence of the Spirit. So, does that mean that those structures were unchangeable and universal? Or are they temporal and contextual? I think I fall more on the temporal/contextual side of the coin, but I would like to hear other peoples' thoughts. I just ask that whenever possible, offer your opinions along with whatever scriptural basis forms your thoughts. For my part, I think my understanding is formed by the feeling that Jesus cared little for the highly structured Jewish synagogue conventions that overshaddowed the truth of God's will, and I when the apostles formulated structure in the church (when explicitly acting in the Spirit or not) they were responding to needs, and not establishing a pattern for how the church "should" work. I guess if you follow this to the extreme, than I guess I think the church should be re-invented by the Spirit in every circumstance according to the needs of the community. Thoughts?
See Daniel Kirk's post and comments on Sibboleth entitled "conversation" on November 6th. I don't know what I think about it, but it talks of this "reinvention" briefly with texts from the book of Acts that shows the reinvention even from the beginning.
http://sibboleth.blogspot.com
Burly, I had read the Kirk post earlier, but before there were so many good comments to flesh out what he was saying. In an aside building on the RH stuff, I read the first couple of chapters of a book called A Peculiar People that argued that we (in the west) are living in an age more like the early church period than any time in recent history (since constantine?)because the church is no longer endorsed by the state. This logic would explain why smaller post-demoninational, "underground," "alternative," and home church networks are gaining steam.
on that note, what about the mega-churches that are also growing in popularity (I'm sitting in a huge church right now)? Are these replacing the function of the state in the church? or creating tiny denominations of their own with a system of affiliated home churches (home groups)? I'm chasing a rabbit....