Building vs. Nomatic

I have been struggling with the idea of a church having a building because buildings often result in the Church looking inward to maintain the building at least as much as they look outward to help usher in the KoG.

This is part of the "Church as a verb" sort of thinking, where Church is something you do (verb)and not some place you go (noun). If Church were a verb then there would not be a building but if Church is a noun than a building is essential.

Jesus was on the move a lot and so was the early church. They did not build buildings to my knowledge but met in each others homes and businesses for worship and fellowship. This is part of my own hesitation with a Church building, we may be missing some of the message of Jesus in building a structure. And then I heard something on the radio...

Buildings make a statement - "We are going to make a commitment to this community." The building is symbolic of the nature of the mission of the building. So perhaps a building is not too bad at all? But then I got to thinking, "couldn't actions make the same statement?"

Couldn't being a verb church say the same things as a building would suggest (commitment to the community, care for community, provide and serve community, etc.)?

So for a second I was back on board with a church building, then I wondered...

I still am on the fence.

And a child shall lead them...

I spoke with a Sunday School class last Sunday about being in the business of not making church "members" but "church planters". I received this facebook message from one of the members of the class. She gave me permission to post this here. I think it is exactly what we are talking about in terms of "church planters".

So, I'm trying to wrap my head around your discussion in Pathfinders on Sunday. Then, the passage from Isaiah during worship made me think. God cares enough about every star to call it by its name. So, what's in a name? As a Bible scholar, you know that "back in the day" to know a person's name was to know something about the fundamental nature of that person.

That got me thinking.

Knowing a person's name is intimate in a way. It's how we start relationships.

Then, I thought about how our 3-year old son (who just had a birthday the day before Jude's) is intent on asking EVERYONE he comes across, "What's your name?" This is quickly followed by "Hi, (the person's name) I'm Gabriel." At first I was embarrassed by his upfront questioning of every stranger. But then, I started to notice something. People seemed to leave the interaction with my son just a little lighter than they were when we first encountered them. A small interaction from a small person, but I think he really makes an impact.

I'm not sure that we completely understood your full vision about church planting. I'd love to know about the idea behind "planting churches" that aren't "churches" as we've defined them for so long.

To know a person's name is to know them, in a sense. Maybe my 3-year old is smarter than I am. If it is about deepening relationships in our life - not just in our church life - I wonder if maybe my son is a church planter. And, I'd love to know how I foster that to keep him that way.

Just some thoughts.

-Lynaia

Acts 4:32-36

In Bible study yesterday and Acts 4:32-36 was read and reflected on. The group was reflecting on the wonderful nature of communal living and sharing all things. And it is a wonderful thing to consider this sort of living. It is this ideal living which draws me to the Neo-monastic lifestyle.

However I could not help but wonder if the original hearers would have tuned in on the communal living part of the story. I mean community living was very much a normal part of life in the first century (and in many places today). To hear of a community living and sharing together does not seem to strike me as hard if I lived in community than it does if I lived in an individualistic community. I think this might be why we tend to focus on this part of the story.

However, I was drawn to the second part: "Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet." I think what is remarkable here is the fact that a Levite, that is one of the priests of the day, willingly gave up power and position by selling and laying the money at the feet of the representatives of Jesus. This is a guy who had a lot of power (I mean look at his name, they make it sound like he is well known and comes from a well known family) and he just gives it up for the church.

I think there is a greatness to the communal living, but how much greater is the example of this Levite? Am I willing to give up my privilege, position and power and put it at the feet of the community of Jesus? Or will I continue to preserve some of my power and privilege from the community of Jesus (as the next part of the story goes into)?

Fishing for men???

Taken from one of my favorite books, “Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus” by Ched Myers

There is perhaps no expression more traditionally misunderstood than Jesus’ invitation to these workers to become ‘fishers of men’ (Mark 1:17). This metaphor, despite the grand old tradition of missionary interpretation, does not refer to the “saving of souls,” as if Jesus were conferring upon these men instant evangelist status. Rather, the image is carefully chosen from Jeremiah 16:16, where it is used as a symbol of Yahweh’s censure of Israel. Elsewhere the “hooking of fish” is a euphemism for judgment upon the rich (Amos 4:2) and powerful (Ezekiel 29:4). Taking this mandate for his own, Jesus is inviting common fold to join him in his struggle to overturn the existing order of power and privilege.

I would add two things to this. Matthew 17:27 Jesus asks his disciples to pull a fish out of the water and remove the riches in its mouth. Secondly, In light of this interpretation it is highly ironic that James Avery would make an gold and silver “fishers of men” bracelet.