Seen this about a month ago from somewhere. I had some discussion with friends over it. There were 2 churches. The formal one that looks like the picture up there. The other church in the background where fellowship, small groups, individual ministering to each other occurred. Out of this often came the missions and the ministries. Formal church uses the static language–so everyone can repeat, so the status quo group and the clique that is in at the time can satisfy their power needs until of course the sermon happens. Then I always feel the change then. To me that is the connection to the church in the background. The question becomes are they both the church and two faces of it or is one the church and the other something that developed because of our history. In college when we looked in depth at the practices of the Roman Empire in its Emperor rituals and its worship. I always noticed how much the trappings and look inside of our churches reflected Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy. Constantine took the Christian Church to the world. I believe we paid a price for that route with the Roman empire trappings coming along with that. The early church did not look like that. I think the emerging church movement we see going on is a peeling away of that Roman layer and revealing more what church really is which is relationship with each other and more importantly with outsiders. I believe digital ministry is an asset because we can have a bit of church anytime infiltrated back into our lives. Some how we have to find a way to honor the old in a proper perspective and to usher in the new which is developing into an avalanche. What do I know? I just a writer stating some observations from a wonderful set questions. Which by the way is the highest level of teaching. Gurus are good at it. 🙂
March 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Seen this about a month ago from somewhere. I had some discussion with friends over it. There were 2 churches. The formal one that looks like the picture up there. The other church in the background where fellowship, small groups, individual ministering to each other occurred. Out of this often came the missions and the ministries. Formal church uses the static language–so everyone can repeat, so the status quo group and the clique that is in at the time can satisfy their power needs until of course the sermon happens. Then I always feel the change then. To me that is the connection to the church in the background. The question becomes are they both the church and two faces of it or is one the church and the other something that developed because of our history. In college when we looked in depth at the practices of the Roman Empire in its Emperor rituals and its worship. I always noticed how much the trappings and look inside of our churches reflected Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy. Constantine took the Christian Church to the world. I believe we paid a price for that route with the Roman empire trappings coming along with that. The early church did not look like that. I think the emerging church movement we see going on is a peeling away of that Roman layer and revealing more what church really is which is relationship with each other and more importantly with outsiders. I believe digital ministry is an asset because we can have a bit of church anytime infiltrated back into our lives. Some how we have to find a way to honor the old in a proper perspective and to usher in the new which is developing into an avalanche. What do I know? I just a writer stating some observations from a wonderful set questions. Which by the way is the highest level of teaching. Gurus are good at it. 🙂