When I started playing with the question who is a member, what is church; I thought I could easily pull it all together in three posts – I was wrong!
When I sat down the other day to try to compose “part II” I realised very quickly how wrong I was – if I was going to make any sense, and if I was going to offer manageable chunks for us to ruminate over it was necessary to recognise that three installments would simply not do.
Why the re-think? Simple. I’ve suggested that in order to understand the value of our membership in the community – we ought to first consider what “church” means in our OC/IC/ISM context. So far so good. Now. . . think “church” for a moment – what usually accompanies this ubiquitous term? We often unconsciously blurt out: “catholic” church, “apostolic” church, “sacramental” church etc.
Christianity is a collection of “churches” each one having accumulated descriptives that evoke something about what “church” means in the context of that particular heritage. What are our descriptives? How do these affect our understanding of what the ekklesia is? How do these descriptives colour our expectation of ekklesia as an assembly dedicated to prayer, study, and service?
Now you see my quandry – it’s a great place to be in, and it allows for lots of room for play, so I’m not complaining – I am merely . . . making my excuses if you will; stopping in the middle of the path to look again at the map and re-route the journey.
I think in smaller, more focussed chunks the conversation – and the end result will be richer.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.