Wednesday, January 7, 2009

The Church...

I think there can be two legitimate definitions for "church".

The first being, "All born again Christians as a whole." This can also be called, "The Bride of Christ."

The second definition would be, "a place where aforementioned group meets for fellowship and worship."

So, we have a group of people on one hand and the place they hang out on the other.

In my last blog, I wrote that there is nothing wrong with the church. It was one of those things i understood in my head, but i guess it didn't make as much sense on paper. The church i wrote about was "the collection of all born again Christians." The point i was trying to make was that, a lot of times when the world views the "church," it sees everybody in the buildings and church services. But not everybody in those buildings and services are all Christians.

In today's church, you'll find three different types of people. The first would be the born again christian. The second would be the curious unsaved person. And the last would be the false convert, one who says he is christian, but has never truly been saved.

It is the last type of person where we find our problem and the one i was addressing in my previous blog. They are the one who professes, "Lord, Lord," but does not know the Savior truly.

I think that might help clear up any confusion, if not let me know and I'll take another stab at it.

I'd also like to get some opinions on this and perhaps start a quaint little discussion.

"Is church for the unsaved?"

I ask because, as far as me, I always been taught and told to bring people to church. I remember contests on how many people could be brought to church. I remember "friend days," where you were supposed to bring a friend to church. But i look at it now and don't really see that backed up by scripture. Church is always fellowship and worship among believers in the New Testament. To spread the Gospel, we aren't to bring the unsaved to church(2nd definition), but we should bring the church(1st definition) to the world.

What do you think?

2 comments:

james bridwell said...

i get what you are trying to say josh, but there is one problem. the "church" the world see's is the only thing we have to go on. so in opposition to your argument, there is a very large problem with the "church". the problem is we have cheapened the cost of discipleship. we have completely replaced the dangerous and life consuming call of christ with a "get saved and everything will get better" mentality. it is because of that problem that we have so many people who feel they are living a "christ-like" life. i feel that we can no longer place the blame on those who aren't living the way we now see as proper, but we can only blame ourselves. we have robbed the public of the gospel and "dumbed" them down by telling them to read the bible but not to question and probe it so that they might find what it is christ was really calling us to.

i'm not by any means saying that i know how to fix the problem, but i will make a suggestion that is an answer to the question you raised. i do not feel those who are not followers of christ belong in a sunday morning worship service. we cannot bring and "unchurch" person to a time of worship and fellowship and expect them to understand what is going on...much less fully understand what the call of christ is! the call of christ must become costly again. it must known that choosing to follow christ is not something that should be taken lightly, but also that it will be the most amazing journey someone will join. hope to hear what you have to think.

beencalled said...

Well, thanks for the extra blog James! Jk, but no, i see your point. I still think you have two different kinds of "church" though, the collect body of believers and as you said, what the world sees.

You make a very valid point with that. I did not mean to downplay what the world sees, but to say that just because the world tells us we're one thing, doesn't mean we are.

I love how you worded, "we have cheapened the cost of discipleship." I could not have said that any better myself.

For once, i think we are in agreement...