Denominations & Ordination: A Crock of Baloney?
He is discussing a series of blogs by Tony Jones, who is discussing the idea of ordination in today's Church. He has some provacative ideas regarding ordination, it's worth reading.My response to Mike is below.
>>>
Mike,
Thanks for the discussion. I find Tony's remarks interesting, and relevant to the present situation in Christian church society.
I also agree with you.
As one who has come out of the big box structure of church, I at first was very anti-anything that had to do with structure and organization. I find that many house church folk are in that very mode.
After 10 years or so in this mind set, or paradigm. I have come to the understanding that this life in Christ is nothing at all to do with one's chose method of gathering or meeting.
One of the things I have thought and spoken since I started on this HC part of my journey in Christ, is that it is not about HC. Now I add it is not about any form of church! And yet, it is all about the community of believers.
I too have come to a "and" view of church. To my present understanding, we are to be about building the body of Christ, building and advancing the kingdom of God and Christ. We are not to be about building our old and present denominational divisions and walls.
In some ways I appreciate Watchman Nee's idea of the local church, and not leaving one's locality to "attend church" in a different locality. Though in the past I took Nee's ideas to be too legalistic, I am starting to understand better what he was trying to communicate.
I see a fault in people seeking the "right church" or trying to find a church they fit into to. Most often people are not seeking the Lord or following his leading in their choices, instead they use some base idea of what church "should be" and seek one that meets their ideal.
Whether an ideal of liturgical practice, building structure, pastoral or teacher ability, doctrinal positions, denominational alignment, congregational services available, ...etc. People use many different criteria in choosing the "right church".
I believe that all these ideals miss the whole point of a fellowship of believers. I see the goal of a fellowship of believers is to be able to be involved in each other's lives, in real and practical ways. Daily as much as is possible in this busy world. (But then when has anyone's world not been busy?)
The goal should be to encourage one another, serve one another, bear up each other..and in all ways seek to fulfill the law of Christ, which is to love one another as he loved us.
With this base goal in mind as our ideal, I can see this happening in any historic church or communion. What I see happening in reality is that some churches and pastors get this, and try to implement it in their church. Others find that the "leaders" limit how far real community can take place, or church functions actually make it hard for the congregation to function fully as a community in some way. Hard to serve one another if all your time is devoted and consumed with keeping the machinery of the church organization working.
Many lose their lives in "church work" only to lose the soul of a believer's community. Some lose their own families, while "serving" at and for the Church.
I have found in house church, some of this reality of community. In our HC we still were driving across town to gather, and the distance between us did limit how often we could be with each other on a daily basis. Some weeks we only saw each other face to face at our meetings. Other weeks some of us might be involved together with other activities.
When a need arose we met it for each other, like an extended family would.
From my present view, I think we find the right ideal at work, in local neighborhood fellowships, whether in a historic type of church (IC) or one of the modern modes of HC or emerging church (EC).
I know of small town churches (one with a town population of 2,000) of the historic or IC type, that have the community ideal at work. The congregation has history together, many of them growing up in that town, and in that church body. Most know each other and each others family. They see each other outside the walls of the church building during the week. Many work for each other or with each other. They take care of each other when they are sick, bring over food, clean the house, harvest the back 40, and such. When there is a need someone takes care of it, without fanfare, it just gets taken care of.
This to me represents what can be good and right in a denominational IC setting.
So Mike I too have come to an "and" view of church. I'm not ready to accept lots of liturgy in my gatherings. But I can accept those who do, as equal brothers in Christ.
I think we need to spend our time encouraging what is right, more than criticizing all that is wrong with the church. Positive encouragement does a lot more in getting people to do the right thing (can we say orthoproxy?), then criticising them for all their wrong ways. When we criticise too much, people just get defensive, then the walls go up. They stop listening to us, and start to plan their defenses.
When we come to them with loving service, and speak gently words of encouragement, so as to spur them on to love and good deeds out of a pure heart. Just to do the next thing, the next step. At some point we find them walking besides us, less concerned with the historic church function and more concerned with expressing Christ with the other brethren in their locality, and after all isn't that one of our true goals? Not just being right (orthodox) but living right (orthoprox).
Your fellow servant in Him,
Kent, IHMS
Kent, IHMS
in Cape Coral, FL
Matt 25:40 "As you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me."
