Total Church blog
5/17/2010
Our intention for this blog is to dialogue through different books that we find to be especially pertinent to the purposes of Lantern Road Fellowship. We want to focus on reviewing this book and we also want to stay on topic and not comment ahead of where we are presently reading.
Let me start by saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book so far. We are studying together through the book Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. My intention is to read one chapter a week and then we can dialogue together the things that we are most interested in talking through. For the sake of beginning this dialogue I want to cover just the forward and the introduction this week.
The Forward
The first thing that caught my attention was the name of the place where these men minister. “The Crowded House” intrigues me because I am not sure if they got the name from a scriptural thought or if it is a motivating hope of their hearts. I like how inclusive it sounds. The first statement that I marked in the forward was from the first sentence, “You can tell a lot about people by their friends.” With the ongoing point about Jesus own reputation for friendships. It certainly is true that for most Christians there aren’t many unchurched friends on the must invite to my party list. Another sentence that was used to describe the author’s ministry was in the 3rd paragraph. It says, “They are trying to be a different kind of church with a sort of easy-to-see, easy-to-understand, come-and-join-us feel.” At first that doesn’t seem like enough, but as I read their philosophy of ministry I became more at ease with the idea, because at the same time their philosophy seems to be anything but “easy” Christianity. Lastly, in the forward I liked the quote from Lesslie Newbigin, “that the local congregation is the “hermeneutic of the gospel” if you want to know what Jesus looked like, look at the church.” Something about that statement is fundamental to pure and holy motivation in church strategy. There is a sense of the fear of the Lord on that statement.
The Introduction
In the introduction I was challenged by Steve’s story on page 15, the first 2 paragraphs concerning the impenetrable wall between the church and the world. His 2 issues are very relevant to the heart of the problem. First, is his concern with the primary and almost exclusive way that the gospel is presented and secondly, the reality that community is too good to be hidden away from society.
Also, in the intro they present the 2 key principles that their own church is built on and the book is about. Beginning on page 15 they state, the way that they “do church”, which is gospel and community. They state it as “fidelity to the core content of the gospel and fidelity to the primary context of a believing community”. They go on to state that, “What we do is always defined by the gospel, and the context is always our belonging in the church.” I really like the effort to honor the gospel and to realize that it alone has the power to save. I also like the definition of gospel-centered, first, being Word centered and also being mission centered. Both hinging on the reality that the most fundamental and basic definition of gospel is a message of good news which is Jesus death, burial and resurrection and also that because of the nature of the gospel is entails the essential of taking the message somewhere.
I do think that they make an initial leap, although it is one I think is right, in emphasizing that the best term church (ecclesia) was used to mean “a gathering with a defined purpose” in Greek usage. An individual cannot be the church; he can belong to the church but he cannot in himself be the church. He can even represent the church but he cannot be the church. Also, by reason, when we believe the gospel we are baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12) and when we are baptized in water we are also identifying with Christ but also being baptized into the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4).
On pages 16 and 17 I think they concisely define the current concern with traditional and emergent church. It may be oversimplified but it seems accurate. I also underlined pretty much everything on point 2 on page 18. I’d love to hear from all of you on that point especially.
Lastly, in the intro I liked the humility on page 19 and 20 where they state who they are. Not having arrived but not being afraid to state ideals and to attempt to reach for them. I also like their definition of being a network of missionary congregations. They state that this mandate means that they “grow by planting new congregations rather than acquiring bigger premises.” This has become a growing passion in my own heart to the point that I find myself wrestling with indignation about wasting funds on property instead of people.
Please feel free to express your heart on these things and remember that next week we will be covering chapter 1. Blessings
Since you said that you are particularly interested in our take on the authors point #2 on page 18 I guess I will respond…
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I do agree with and am interested in the concept of ‘church’ that the author is suggesting here. Moreover, I do agree with most (not all) of his bullet point items. But the very first and last bullet point intrigued me the most. I will start with the last bullet point.
I think having a church that is messy and does not pretend is completely consistent with Christianity itself. It is my observation that Christianity is a bloody, awkward, and even dirty religion…in other words it is indeed messy. I think true Christianity deals with the ‘dirt’ of life unlike any other religion. Read any part of the Bible and you’ll find the Lord dealing with His people who find themselves struggling with the realities of life…and result of sin. I think we, as a young body, should likewise be just as willing not only to deal with these messes of life…but in a way, embrace them.
The first bullet point has got me to wondering. I am trying to envision my identity wrapped in LRF. I like the thought of being associated with all of you for sure…there’s a sense of security and even almost a Godly pride in knowing all of you as my brothers. However, I really think though that Church can only be a component of ones identity (I am not implying that the author meant anything to the contrary…but I just don’t know at this point of the book).
What I really take from the fact of being identified with a church is the sense of ownership. My heart is really vested in the health and wellbeing of each of you and LRF by extension; we are all part of a living, growing thing. To this extent I really do identify with the church…my church.
I found the bullet points on page 18 to be very interesting as well. I find myself in agreement with most all the points, though a few definitely struck home with me. What lies behind all of these points is the fact that our calling is all about a LIFESTYLE, and that "doing" and "being" the church is a lifestyle rather than just a component of life.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I believe that the church is not seen as an identity but rather as a responsibility that is balanced alongside other commitments (bullet point #1). I do not see many people in the church these days who are biting at the bit to get involved in the lives of others. Or how difficult it seems to get peeps involved in ANY sort of activity that takes place outside of Sunday morning. I do not believe that it is possible to live a true God-centered life unless our identity is wrapped up primarily in the context of the church.
We live in a cultural that strongly encourages new experiences, instant gratification, and emotional moments that "connect" us to something bigger than ourselves. The focus on the present moment, and the individual self, has become the spotlight that bears true meaning in our lives. In many ways, the church has lost its own identity and no longer functions within the biblical narrative. At best, we live off fragments of past stories pieced together for a moment's time.