Is the church like a family that is focused on the spiritual welfare and growth of each individual member? Or is the church more like an army or a mission society with a vision and purpose that lies beyond itself in reaching the lost?
Tony, a bit late in listening, but the thing that struck me towards the end was when you talked of Bon.'s resolution to the tension was to see church as its own 'thing', determined by Jesus who brings us together and gives us our purpose.
And the word was 'King' and 'kingdom'. Having a King is something that bridges a family/community and a society/enterprise. And it all depends on whether the King is truly benevolent or not.
That's a theme for the people of God somewhere in Scripture too, isn't, according to 'Goldy' at least.
Thanks for this Tony, some really helpful thoughts raised on a topic that I think is a constantly swinging pendulum.
I wonder if there are a few layers to this: 1) what the church actually is, 2) in what order we place the different elements of church life, and 3) how people view their relationship to or participation in the life of the church.
1) In sociological terminology, it sounds like the church really is a mix of both, though (like you and Bonhoeffer say) we probably shouldn't force the normative categories of church in scripture into the descriptive categories of sociology. Regardless, the benefit of this is the precision we gain for articulating the kind of community church is: one of deep relational ties and commitment yet which has a purpose beyond itself, so in a sense both at the same time.
2) perhaps it's worth thinking about the order in which things are expressed. It seems to me that the first note hit is the community. Yet this community/family is not a closed group, but one that seeks to bring others in - this rather than a group bound by a purpose who are also called to love each other. I wonder if that was part of the issue in Corinth, a purpose (worship, gifts) was overriding a fundamental reality. In the back of my mind I can hear Bonhoeffer saying that this community is not an ideal we are to realise but a reality created by God - that reality precedes any visionary purpose but in a way that is inseparable. Perhaps a priority of structure rather than time or importance.
3) However, even if we get clear on what the reality is, I suspect most people walking through our doors view church as a society, probably because of the romantic heritage that says choice is fundamental to authenticity, as well as social changes stemming from the industrial revolution where any community I belong to is necessarily one I have chosen to belong to, usually of common interests - why would church be any different?
So, perhaps the tug of war is less an expression of what we think about church and more one of our cultural heritage. On the one hand, most people don't naturally view their church as a family/community - at least not in the highest sense of deep mutual obligation and responsibility. Hence a recent effort to restructure church to better express and accentuate this reality; things like soul revival, or crowded house (recent events notwithstanding). On the other hand, perhaps this (somewhat) explains the pull and success of well thought out church vision and structuring - another homogenous unit, though instead of specific demographic it's one of deeper cultural underpinnings.
Tony, a bit late in listening, but the thing that struck me towards the end was when you talked of Bon.'s resolution to the tension was to see church as its own 'thing', determined by Jesus who brings us together and gives us our purpose.
And the word was 'King' and 'kingdom'. Having a King is something that bridges a family/community and a society/enterprise. And it all depends on whether the King is truly benevolent or not.
That's a theme for the people of God somewhere in Scripture too, isn't, according to 'Goldy' at least.
Thanks for this Tony, some really helpful thoughts raised on a topic that I think is a constantly swinging pendulum.
I wonder if there are a few layers to this: 1) what the church actually is, 2) in what order we place the different elements of church life, and 3) how people view their relationship to or participation in the life of the church.
1) In sociological terminology, it sounds like the church really is a mix of both, though (like you and Bonhoeffer say) we probably shouldn't force the normative categories of church in scripture into the descriptive categories of sociology. Regardless, the benefit of this is the precision we gain for articulating the kind of community church is: one of deep relational ties and commitment yet which has a purpose beyond itself, so in a sense both at the same time.
2) perhaps it's worth thinking about the order in which things are expressed. It seems to me that the first note hit is the community. Yet this community/family is not a closed group, but one that seeks to bring others in - this rather than a group bound by a purpose who are also called to love each other. I wonder if that was part of the issue in Corinth, a purpose (worship, gifts) was overriding a fundamental reality. In the back of my mind I can hear Bonhoeffer saying that this community is not an ideal we are to realise but a reality created by God - that reality precedes any visionary purpose but in a way that is inseparable. Perhaps a priority of structure rather than time or importance.
3) However, even if we get clear on what the reality is, I suspect most people walking through our doors view church as a society, probably because of the romantic heritage that says choice is fundamental to authenticity, as well as social changes stemming from the industrial revolution where any community I belong to is necessarily one I have chosen to belong to, usually of common interests - why would church be any different?
So, perhaps the tug of war is less an expression of what we think about church and more one of our cultural heritage. On the one hand, most people don't naturally view their church as a family/community - at least not in the highest sense of deep mutual obligation and responsibility. Hence a recent effort to restructure church to better express and accentuate this reality; things like soul revival, or crowded house (recent events notwithstanding). On the other hand, perhaps this (somewhat) explains the pull and success of well thought out church vision and structuring - another homogenous unit, though instead of specific demographic it's one of deeper cultural underpinnings.
...or maybe I've entirely misread the situation.
Blessings,
Callan