Re: What is church?
July 13, 2007
Question 6: What is church?
There are only two questions left in my “What is…” series: sin & salvation. Thanks to all those who have participated in these conversations - I hope they’ve been fruitful, or at least thought-provoking for everyone.
It’s been awhile since I have had a chance to reflect a bit on church. What is church? Many who left comments asked if I meant “church” or “the church”? Of course, it was open to interpretation. But if someone were to ask me “What is church?” - I think I would say “church” could be many things. Church can be First Presbyterian Church of Somewhere, USA worshiping at 11am on a Sunday morning. However, church can also be a group of twenty and thirty-somethings sitting around in a bar drinking beer and discussing theology (hence the ever-popular “Theology on Tap” meetings within emerging churches). Church can be a group of friends getting together for a cup of coffee, or an individual hiking Half-Dome in Yosemite.
Too often we’ve equated “church” with bricks and mortar (as is easily seen by this Google Images search for the word “church”), while that can often be the death of “church” or community. The church is about community, about the kingdom of God - and that is often happening more today outside the walls of the ‘traditional’ churches than inside them.
Clearly this isn’t a slam on the institutional church - I am, myself, in the process of getting ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA). But we have to have a more open approach to understanding “church.”
So, what is church? Church is when both individuals and communities of people seek out to do the things that draw themselves to God and to each other. The church is the community of people, past and present, who have sought out, and will continue to seek out creative, true, deep, alternative and faithful ways of living a life toward God.
Tags: Church, Ecclesiology, Emergent
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
July 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
if stanley hauerwas were here he’d say: “Church is Polis”.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
This is utterly vacuous.
I’m sure Muslims will be delighted to hear that they are part of the church, as will be every couple reading poetry to one another in the park who feel there’s something divine going on.
There are several problems. Just to name some: there is no divine agency in your description of the church. Church happens when people look for things that will draw themselves to God? Nor is there an eschatological horizon, no future (only “past and present”). Worse still, there is no Jesus.
Further, while you say, “clearly this isn’t a slam on the institutional church,” I don’t think this is so clear. [One would want to question what difference there is between a phrase like 'institutional church' and 'church'.] Your description makes it sound like the church evaporates whenever people aren’t seeking “out to do the things that draw themselves to God and to each other.” This wasn’t Israel’s experience as the chosen people of God. When they no longer sought after God, they were still God’s people (and suffered for it). In short, this description is too anthropocentric. Given this description I’d really wonder why you’d pursue ordination in the PCUSA…or pursue ordination…or go to church. Take a walk in the park and hold hands instead.
All that said, I’m pretty sure that you have good reasons for pursuing ordination, so I feel like this description doesn’t reflect you adequately.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Adam, do you have anything to say in response to Dan’s criticism of your ecclesiology?
pax Christi tibi,
kp
August 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I know better than to think you didn’t see my question the first time, because I know very well that there is nothing that happens on this blog — especially comments! — that you do not look at at least two or three times daily. So what gives? Do you not take Dan’s criticism of your position seriously? Do you think Dan is wrong? Or do you simply concede that Dan is correct by remaining silent? If I may summarize his critique, he has essentially claimed that your take on ecclesiology evacuates the content of “Christian church” to the extent that a “Christian” should hardly want to involve herself with it. What do you have to say in your own defense?
Hope you’re well….
pax,
kp
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think Dan offers a good critique of my definition of church - and I am certainly open to the fact that I may be wrong in my definition of church. It sounds like Dan is looking more for a definition of church that includes worship of Jesus and one that includes divine agency. Is that correct Dan?
I think to say that my description has no divine agency is incorrect - and that almost sounds like one could go from there to saying that divine agency has to happen within the bricks and mortar of a church ‘building’ - I think God is at work in all places and at all times - and yes, God can even be at work between a couple holding hands in a park - though there are probably other forces at work there, as well…
Are Muslims part of the church? The Christian church? No - I don’t think they’d say they are and it wouldn’t be fair for me to say they are. Are Muslims part of the kingdom of God here on earth? The working of God in the world? Yes - I think they are - and perhaps I’m trying to take the traditional definition of church and broaden it too much - perhaps I should just use words like community, kingdom of God - words more like what the gospels use…
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Bro. Thanks!