The church, our Mother

Once again, I'm feeling kinda swamped and don't have the leisure to do too much abstract thought. But I want to keep up (and wrap up) our ongoing discussion about "church."

Most of you know that I have a great admiration for N.T. Wright. I think he's one of the most progressive, pragmatic, and biblically grounded theologians in recent history. And so, what I have to offer you today is an excerpt from his book "Simply Christian" (pg. 210-212):

"If God is our father, the church is our mother." The words are those of the Swiss Reformer John Calvin. Several biblical passages speak in this way (notably, Galatians 4:26-27, echoing Isaiah 54:1). They underline the fact that it is as impossible, unnecessary, and undesirable to be a Christian all by yourself as it is to be a newborn baby all by yourself.

The church is first and foremost a community, a collection of people who belong to one another because they belong to God, the God we know in andthrough Jesus. Though we often use the word "church" to denote a building, the point is that it's the building where this community meets. True, buildings can and do carry memories, and when people have been praying and worshiping and mourning and celebrating in a particular building for many years, the building itself may come to speak powerfully of God's welcoming presence. But it is the people who matter.

...

It is within the church, even when the church isn't getting everything quite right, that the Christian faith of which we have spoken is nourished and grows to maturity. As with any

family, the members discover who they are in relationship with one another. Churches vary enormously in size, from scattered handfuls of people in isolated villages to enormous congregations of many thousands in some parts of the world. But ideally every Christian should belong to a group that is small enough for individuals to get to know and care for one another, and particularly to pray in meaningful depth for one another, and also to a fellowship large enough to contain a wide variety in its membership, styles of worship, and kingdom-activity. The smaller the local community, the more important it is to be powerfully linked to a larger unit. The larger the regular gathering... the more important it is for each member to belong also to a smaller group...

So, what do you think?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

A little more Crowder

Hey everyone. As most of you know, me and my little family were on holidays this past week. We had a great time hanging out with family in the Radium, BC area.

I have no wonderful insights for you this week, although I hope to wrap up our ekklesia discussion very soon. But in the meantime I want to give you all a little more Crowder.

The David Crowder* Band recently released a new album, "Church Music." As usual, they have put together one of the most progressive "worship" albums out there. These guys are awesome.

They also happen to be very funny! To promo their album they posted a series of "Rockumentaries" on YouTube. Please enjoy the following responsibly:

[Sorry that the video doesn't fit properly on this blog template. Double click on the video to watch it properly on YouTube.]

Nature Deficit Disorder

This week I'm taking a week-long module class at Bethany College. It's been OK, but so far the highlight for me has been that the prof lent me a book that I've been wanting to buy for a while now: "Last Child in the Woods" by Richard Louv. This book talks about "Nature-Deficit Disorder." In this book Louv draws connections between our continuing disconnection with nature and the rise of a variety of things like obesity, attention disorders, and depression.

Below I offer you a paragraph from the first chapter:

"For children, nature comes in many forms. A newborn calf; a pet that lives and dies; a worn path through the woods; a fort nestled in stinging nettles; a damp, mysterious edge of a vacant lot -- whatever shape nature takes, it offers each child an older, larger world separate from parents. Unlike television, nature does not steal time; it amplifies it. Nature offers healing for a child living in a destructive family or neighbourhood. It serves as a blank slate upon which a child draws and reinterprets the culture's fantasies. Nature inspires creativity in a child by demanding visualization and the full use of the senses. Given a chance, a child will bring the confusion of the world to the woods, wash it in the creek, turn it over to see what lives on the unseen side of confusion. Nature can frighten a child, too, and this fright serves a purpose. In nature, a child finds freedom, fantasy, and privacy: a place distant from the adult world, a separate peace" (pg. 1).

What do you think?

MMW

Hey! Like the new look? I think it's great. Thanks to my lovely wife for doing it all for me:)

I apologize for the lack of post-age this week. It's been a really busy one. And next week I'll be in a class at Bethany for a week-long module, so I'm guessing there won't be a post next week either... but don't worry, I promise to come back. I won't ditch you like last time, I promise!

In the meantime I leave you with a clip from one of my favorite bands: Medeski, Martin, and Wood (or MMW). They are a sweet, crazy, experimental jazz trio. This clip is a trailer for their upcoming DVD.

It's a little weird and eclectic but even if you're not into this kind of stuff make sure to check out the organ solo at 2:10, and the piano vs. screwdriver at 4:40.

Please excuse (or avoid... you've been warned) the very unfortunate expletive at 5:10 :(

Synagogues and Churches?

As I've been thinking through all of this ekklesia stuff my mind keeps on coming back to the Jewish synagogue. This is because I have heard (I don't remember where) that as the ekklesia spread it modelled itself after the synagogue.

So how did ancient synagogues function?

In what ways is that similar/dissimilar to what we see in the early church?

Synagogues (literally, assemblies... like ekklesia it is a gathering of the people not a building) began during the Babylonian captivity. With the temple destroyed and the people in captivity the Rabbis of the day came up with a way for the people of God to have worship gatherings without the temple. Initially, these gatherings began as meetings in homes and then as they grew and became more established they built their own buildings, appointed elders to lead the gatherings, and hired rabbis to teach them and their children. Eventually, each community had its own synagogue with it's own elders and rabbis. Sound familiar?

These synagogue assemblies centred on the scriptures and prayer. Scriptures were read, a rabbi would explain the text, and debate/discussion would follow. Times of communal prayer also

took place. I have read nothing to indicate that music was a part of these synagogue gatherings but we all know how important the worship arts were to the people of Israel... that's for another

day.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but to me all of this sounds very similar to how the early church operated. [The picture is of the Synagogue in Capernaum]

So, how is this connected to our current discussion? In "Pagan Christianity" Viola makes the argument that the bulk of how we "do church" has its roots in Graeco-Roman paganism rather than in the scriptures. I would agree that much of how we do things is based on tradition and not the scriptures. But I'd say that today's church owes just as much (and I'd argue much more) to the Jewish synagogue than to pagan religions.

You guys are bright, intelligent people. What do you think?

What am I missing?

Do you know of other similarities (or dissimilarities) to synagogue worship?

And for those of you who really don't care about any of this:

Here's the newest trailer for the upcoming "Astro Boy" movie!

descriptive or prescriptive?

I think it goes without saying that all churches claim to be Biblically rooted, so I always think it's kind of funny when people say things like, "well, we're just trying to get back to the way they did it in the Bible." First of all I think it's funny because it comes across as more than a little pretentious (as if the rest of us aren't "biblical") and secondly... well, that leads me into the bulk of this post:

Whenever we're dealing with hermeneutics (interpretation of the scriptures) there are a number of questions that need to be asked. One very important one is this: is the text we are looking at descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, is the text we are looking at simply describing stuff that took place (with little or no bearing/obligation upon us to respond to it in a given way)

or is the text clearly stating something in such a way that it demands a specific response from us as we read it?

Our discussion on "church" is the perfect example. What we see in the NT is this:

1. Christians gathering at the temple/local synagogue to hear the scriptures read (no Christian would have their own copy of the scriptures).

2. they would then leave these rather large gatherings and meet in necessarily smaller groups in their own houses in order to discuss what they heard from the scriptures, pray, and break bread.

Now, the whole house church movement (backed up by Viola, Barna, the Dales... which started

this set of posts) is centred on #2. They see the descriptions of meeting house to house and say that the truly Biblical model is based on small groups of Christians meeting not in church owned buildings but in homes.

But I don't know if they asked this important hermeneutic question: is what we see in the NT (when it comes to ekklesia) descriptive or prescriptive?

When the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it simply a description of how they chose to meet? Ie. there is no obligation for future generations of Christians all around the globe to meet in this precise manner.

Or when the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it prescriptive? Ie. how the early Christians met is the way that God requires all of us to be meeting.

Let's have a discussion around this.

What do you think?