ekklesia = gathering

this is where i flesh out the frame of an idea that has been slowly growing in my mind. i have found that my mind is like a crock-pot. here is part of the result of weeks of cooking.

my favorite way to begin a discussion is with a question. what is church, truly?
there are two senses in which church is discussed, one being an idea of the "universal church", and the the other is the local church. the idea of the universal church is the collection of believers past, present, and future, here in this time and outside of this time. i attribute this idea to the whole of the body of christ. i believe it is the kingdom of Christ. the local church is that much smaller, immediate gathering to which you belong, or which you attend, if you do either. i use the word "gathering" here for a reason. not to get too technical but the term used by paul specifically, and by the n.t. as a whole is ekklesia which more truly could be translated as "gathering." i could get into a discussion over its etymology but that would be boring. so, gathering of fellow believers should suffice as a whole definition. the term "church" was adopted later to describe a christian gathering. i doubt i need to remind you that a church is not the building.
i'm digging into this concept of a gathering because i believe that's what a church is simply meant to be. a local church simply is a local gathering of God's children together. there are many purposes for gathering together; worship, education, fellowship, love, support, guidance, etc. when i use the terms "simple church" or "church simply" i mean a church bent on these purposes and nothing more.
when i consider many of the churches i've encountered and conclude upon their apparent understanding of the church's function, i have to imagine that they have lost the original intent for the church. i am living in the heart of the southern baptist belt. some may also argue i'm living in the heart of the bible belt. i'm less inclined to agree with that, nevertheless i have tons of churches to choose from. what applies to southern baptists probably also applies to non-denominational churches, presbyterian, methodist, etc. when i consider these churches the first thing i notice is their building. many of them are enormous probably because a bunch of people attend them. they also have a multitude of programs such as youth group, men's group, women's group, nursery, this bible study, that bible study, vbs, sunday school, etc. none of these things are wrong per se, but my question is whether or not these things are attempting to fill a void, and if so what should fit properly in the place of that void?
basically, i think we neglect true community and attempt to fill it in with all these silly programs.
instead of valuing the church for what it is designed to be simply, and loving it for that reason, we create large organizations that look good and make us feel good though in turn they do not function as they should. church simply, requires a vision for God.
a simple church is nothing more than the gathering of fellow believers together to worship God, to make God known, and to learn to love each other. in this context everything is covered, discipleship, teaching, you name it. these things are most fully experienced in tight community. tight community is best facilitated in a local area where individuals have the ability to see each other on a daily basis and to do life together. in acts chapter 20: 17-32 paul calls to himself the elders from the church at ephesus. in these verses he outlines his ministry in ephesus and the relationship he had with those gathering together. we see that in three years time he created a community of believers, taught them, and discipled them to the point that he could leave them to fend for themselves against the "savage wolves" which would come in amongst them. he says that, "i was with you the whole time...teaching you publicly and from house to house." he was with them in sickness and in tears, in good times and bad. he was married to them! none of this driving 25 + minutes to church every week. a commuter community can not flourish. paul did life with these people and in that context he raised an strong, tight community of christians.
i also believe evangelism is best performed when faith is lived day in and day out in the eyes of non-believers. how effective would a tight community of believers be growing together in love everyday before those in their local area who have no hope? yes, it would be messy but messiness would only speak of authenticity and humanity in light of grace. i believe we avoid this concept of church because it would be messy. who are we to hide our messiness behind the walls of big buildings?
in order to succesfully create this simple, tight church gathering we would need to cast off a lot of pride and most of our concept of church. the pastor of this gathering would have to "settle" for service away from the spotlight. he may never get paid. he may never have a flock over 30, which may be advantageous if he never gets paid. maybe they never move into a building but remain in a home for their gatherings. i would argue that if such a community with such a vision is to exist its numbers must be limited (maybe not as low as 30) to encourage the maximum bond between members. when the numbers consistently exceed that capacity then another gathering should be created. this would not necessarily be a problem if discipleship and clear teaching are emphasized from the beginning. in this way a network of simple, tight churches could be created, and perhaps occasionally there could be a larger gathering of communities to worship and fellowship. i don't see why missions or anything else should be neglected by such a model.
let's let go of those things that hinder our growth together in Christ! let's let go of our pride and our fear!

random statements

that last blog about truth or agenda made no sense.

i would like to own a dog and name him snuffleupagus but call him "gus" for short.

vespa scooters are the only vehicles that make sense.

i partially take that last statement back because bicycles also make sense.

in heaven we will get to know everybody as well as they can possibly be known because we will simply have the time.

i would look really good on a vespa scooter.

bad music is immoral.

i hope i'm not immoral when i play the guitar.

dishwashers are awesome and you people who have them don't truly appreciate them.

my bathroom faucet leaks.

if you want an outdoorsey feel at home just sleep in your sleeping bag.

i am still accepting applications for a scholarship wife.

a scholarship wife is defined as the following: attractive woman willing to marry me and work to put me through school.

apparently i resemble michael scott from the office.

tomorrow i will make a sling david and goliath style.

truth or agenda?

i am caught somewhere between trying to figure out what is correct and what needs to be correct. is this essential? yes. and is this essential? maybe not. does this action have everlasting consequences? if not is that reason enough to justify it? are there any actions that do not have everlasting consequences? what is truth and what is an agenda?

it is easier to deal in black and white.

i understand that we try our best to make things black and white, but things aren't always so clear and perhaps it's unfair to make them submit to our will. can we cast a verdict upon things that are not clear with such certainty? are we meant to? what do we miss out on when we err one way or another?

there are universal essentials no doubt, i believe that as much as anyone. though there are also essentials for you that are non-essential for me. in my opinion these are two valid statements that do not contradict each other.

thankfully the univeral essentials are clear. so should we try to universalize the unclear personal essentials? again, where is the line between truth and agenda?