The reporter made this horrific statement on the news today:
“The church was completely destroyed by fire. . . .”
What!? That’s terrible. Knowing the median worship attendance in the US is 75, I had a mental image of at least 75 people being burned simultaneously.
Check Twitter.
What? Nothing trending? Impossible! Never has so many Christians died by fire in this country’s history, right? Surely this would be all the headlines.
“But that is not stopping the congregation. . . .”
Huh!? How can that be? But you just said. . . .
Then the image that appeared on my television was a smoldering building. A building.
No lives lost. No one injured. Thank the Lord.
“The church must move forward. . . .”
Now, I am confused. You just said the church was completely destroyed by fire. . . .
Of course, this was a tragic situation in my community. A congregation lost their building. As soon as I heard this news, I prayed for my brothers and sisters. I am saddened by this loss and inconvenience.
What is more troubling is that today’s story reveals an unhealthy ecclesiology that is the foundation for many evangelicals. While this was a news report, such language reflects how the Church in North America understands Herself. And why does the world use such terminology? Because the Church uses such descriptors. We have taught the world well. We have taught what we believe. We have modeled what we believe. We have been consistent.
Language means. Language communicates theology.
Over the years, I have heard many leading evangelical theologians, Bible expositors, professors, pastors, mission agency leaders, and church planters refer to the church local in terms foreign to the Scriptures. These are the same people who speak at length of the importance of the accuracy of theological language. They remind us of the exclusivity of Christ that is contrary to society, culture, and tradition. They argue against the times and a limited god for the Sovereign Lord over the universe. They fight tooth and nail over the use of a an iota to describe the relationship of the Son and the Father and that of the Spirit to the Son and the Father. They will also argue for the precision of biblical Hebrew and Greek letters (e.g., Gal 3:16: the promises were to Abraham and to his “offspring” not “offsprings”) Why do they do this? Because, and I completely agree, the Father has revealed elements about Himself in a linguistic medium that can be understood. What He has said, we must say.
But when it comes to ecclesiology. . . tradition trumps biblical language.
This is a very serious matter. This is not an issue of splitting theological hairs or about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The Lord has spoken and we should receive and communicate such truths in accordance with His means. And since I am yet to meet a husband who is comfortable with those who speak incorrectly about his bride, I can only wonder what Jesus thinks of us.
Language affects what you do. How you answer the question, “What is the church (universal and local)?”, affects disciple making and church planting. If your teaching is incorrect, then your belief will be incorrect. If your belief is distorted–a syncretism of pop theological culture and biblical revelation–is that pleasing to the Lord? If I asked about such syncretism related to our Christology, pneumatology, or theology proper, most evangelicals would respond that we should do everything to eliminate as much syncretism as possible. Then why are we comfortable with maintaining a syncretistic ecclesiology?
Maybe part of the reason why we struggle with matters such as meaningful church membership, church covenants, baptism, and healthy church discipline (both formative and corrective) is related to a syncretistic ecclesiology. What does the new believer think when she is told the church is a people, building, and a worship time on Sunday morning? If church leaders are unable to get the definition correct, then no wonder churches struggle with membership issues.
What about church planting? If church is a worship gathering, something you do, meeting place, and/or a group of Christians who receive a new tax-exemption id number this year, then what are denominations and mission agencies communicating when they say: “We planted X-number of churches last year?” Are these the metrics they are using? Maybe. Maybe not. However, when we look to the Scriptures, we find that churches are birthed from evangelism in the harvest fields and not from the shuffling of the sheep around in the Kingdom (e.g., Acts 13-14). Is this our understanding when it comes to our reporting of new churches?
It is sad that a group of our brothers and sisters lost their meeting place today. We must not make light of that. Please pray for them.
However, what I heard this morning was tragic on a different level. What I heard reflects what the Church in North America believes and teaches. And if we want more of what we have, then we are on the right path to get it.
Could not agree more. I drove by a “church” one and noticed the sign they had placed along the road. The top line read, “The Gathering place of __________ ________ ________ Church.” It is too bad our traditions over use the word “church.” The church is the people. The building is the gathering place. The event is worship. Maybe we can begin a grass roots movement using language that makes sense, not only to the church, but to those looking for the answers to their eternal questions.
Some good points, Doug. Thanks for sharing!
Agree JD. Honestly I’ve found lots of guys talking about our use of the word church but not in relation to how we use it regarding church planting. In 2010 I began to look at what “the church” looks like around me and compare it to scripture and saw little to no resemblance. I ran across the guys from Soma in Tacoma and they made a big deal about the church knowing the correct definition of “church”. Finally someone speaking my language! Now that thought pattern has become the new set of buzzwords or methodology for the church. Only problem I’ve always had is, if our language communicates our theology, why do the same people continue to plant churches?!? That language communicates they are planting structures (and in some cases kingdoms). The evidence is in their fruit. In my limited experience, most all church plants are Christians hopping from one church to another. I don’t see that as biblical. I’m not a guy that thinks Paul’s ways are exactly the way it should be done today. To think that Paul is the Holy Spirit for what we do today is missing out on walking with the Spirit and letting him guide us. But I do think the foundation should be the same. Plant the Gospel, let Jesus build his body. Unless I missed it, Paul never told anyone to plant churches nor did he ever go somewhere to start a structure. He did help people organize. The body needs a skeleton to move but doesn’t need a box to control. Maybe in 100 years, the body won’t be this church or that church (sects of Christianity) flying their own banner. It will be the people of God under one banner. This needs no money, no buildings, no professional Christians.
Jesus’ teaching was pretty simple. Love God and love others. How do we love God? We get to know him. When we know him our hearts will be tuned to his and we’ll love others.
Thanks, Josh, for sharing.