Monday, November 07, 2005
A Good Distinction?
21st Century Reformation picked up on my post on Jollyblogger's post concerning church, and he tries to draw a distinction between "the Church" and "doing Church."
In my case, I don't know about Brad, the distinction is born of frustration at the church, at its many failings, and in the personal hurts it has given me. Brad seems to imply in his post that he makes the distinction because the church fails to live up to the totality of its mission. I think Brad and I are saying the same things, though I on a more personal level. Essentially, the church is not all that we think it should be, so we try to find a way to make that reality true.
In my case, I feel like the very "elders and government and authority and oversight" that Brad refers to fosters corrpution, or is at least is a hothouse out of which it always arises. But if I remove the very personal perspective, the deep hurts I have suffered at the hands of such, all I am really saying is that the church is as sinful as the people in it. The church lives in the same "already, not yet" that I as an individual Christian do.
I guess what I am saying is this, I understand the distinction, but I don't find it helpful. I must be a part of the church, and I must find a way to "do church" there. I think that is the way to maturity. In trying to work that out, I learn how to be God's man in a fallen world, and in the process I help bring the church a little closer to what it is supposed to be. As one man sharpens another so I think the church and a man sharpen each other. When we create distinctions like this we create places where the church cannot hone us, and where we cannot hone the church. My sanctification lies in allowing all of myself to be honed into God's instrument.
The church is the institution. Such an institution has elders and government and authority and oversight. We are required to be in the church just like David Wayne is saying. "Doing church" is the charismatic experience of all coming with gifts and bringing them to the assembly.I understand this distinction, it rolls around in my mind all the time, but I am not sure it is helpful.
In my case, I don't know about Brad, the distinction is born of frustration at the church, at its many failings, and in the personal hurts it has given me. Brad seems to imply in his post that he makes the distinction because the church fails to live up to the totality of its mission. I think Brad and I are saying the same things, though I on a more personal level. Essentially, the church is not all that we think it should be, so we try to find a way to make that reality true.
In my case, I feel like the very "elders and government and authority and oversight" that Brad refers to fosters corrpution, or is at least is a hothouse out of which it always arises. But if I remove the very personal perspective, the deep hurts I have suffered at the hands of such, all I am really saying is that the church is as sinful as the people in it. The church lives in the same "already, not yet" that I as an individual Christian do.
I guess what I am saying is this, I understand the distinction, but I don't find it helpful. I must be a part of the church, and I must find a way to "do church" there. I think that is the way to maturity. In trying to work that out, I learn how to be God's man in a fallen world, and in the process I help bring the church a little closer to what it is supposed to be. As one man sharpens another so I think the church and a man sharpen each other. When we create distinctions like this we create places where the church cannot hone us, and where we cannot hone the church. My sanctification lies in allowing all of myself to be honed into God's instrument.
