Disqus - Latest Comments for tomdart

Re: Pondering Streets of Gold (and an opportunity)

tomdart — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:55:22 -0000

Dale, I for one am a photographer. Certainly I am not so skilled and enabled to travel as is Jeff to present his view of sacred places so I thank our Father that we are able to see his fine photos here.

Some scenes compose it seems automatically and others are as seen in a special way by the photographers eye. In these photos, there must be eye but also heart, a heart knowing God behind much of the framing of what is around us.

Perhaps the greatest beauty God has give us is our ability through Him to do what we believe we cannot, in spite of a dismal view and fearful anticipation. God lifts and supports and loves. For me, with my appreciation of what I see from the hands of the Father, much of this creation is the very lift I need to get up and going. Now, to learn more to see people, all people as ones who should be on those streets of gold... God Bless all. Tom.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

tomdart — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:46:23 -0000

Jesus made it quite clear that "worship would not be on that hill or in that city". Yet, as Ren's words showed, we have forgotten that. The meeting place has an auditorium where "worship" takes place along with other things. We tend to call this auditorium the "sanctuary" and may even knell when we enter the holiness of it all. In my brandname church we do not say sanctuary but I am not touchy about that word..I mentioned it to emphasize the point made by Ren.

Dale, I believe we need a corner to gather on. We find there in this mobile society a means to mobilize the gathers int the community if we so desire. We find a place to share if we dare do that in a service of "mixed brandnames"..we have not done that one! We find a place to see those we do not see often as we would like and very likely not as often as the early Christians might see each other in daily life. We live separated by miles and sometimes joined only by that corner. That does not and MUST not be defined to mean the corner is the Church. As we know, that definition has unfortunately been applied strongly already, so much so that going to "another corner" can be very uncomfortable.

I want my corner to be visible to all, visible and inviting without by that simple vision of what is seen. That is a wish and not a reality. I have to go out and be in the community, not on that hill or in that city but in all of it and the walk inbetween. Oh my.

I am trying to digest all you said in the very provoking intro to this part of the study and examination of church.
Some time will be needed to clearly absorb all your thoughts and let you know if I think some thoughts are all wet or on target. It is a different realm of thinking..from a different and perhaps more honest perspective. God Bless. Tom.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 2) unraveling the crisis

tomdart — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:10:52 -0000

Pkenney, when I said previous to your fine comment: "The institution should be a reflection of the believers and therefore a reflection of the Bride of Christ, not believers simply being a reflection of a particular institution"...this to me means after reading your words, organism, living thing, following a path of Christ or moving away and still living but not reflecting Christ.

The organism I desire is one of God, made from the believers and dependant on the contribution spiritualy of each. I believe it quite possible if we do somehow reach the church we want, or find the one closest to what seems right, we will see fewer members who now grace the pews. Yet, that will be the time to bring in new members, seeking the lost as is commanded.

We say, give it over to God, follow His Spirit..now, how do we know that is happening? I pray and have faith guidance is there...

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 2) unraveling the crisis

tomdart — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:14:13 -0000

I took the main questions posted at the beginning of Part Two and have tried to answer here Anyone with a different take is encouraged to let me know..

Is the church both of them? Yes, it is. Certainly the church is the membership of the kingdom established by Christ, yet this membership is scattered. Where believers come to each other to worship, encourage, share communion, pray and otherwise support local families of believers, this becomes an institution joined and held together with the threads of a common belief.

Is the organizing of a people an automatic institution as we know it? I would call it an organization, the institutional part comes from the basis of and reasons for the organization in the first part.

Have we historically been thinking of the “offices” “format,” “government,” “membership” qualities of the institution in the right way (do we automatically use the verses to justify the positions and formats we have at our “church”?). To me, the assembly of believers becomes an organization. Then knowing that leadership by responsible and spiritual members is needed for growth and protection of our belief, we look for people to fill those positions of leadership. I see elders (or bishops) as what was to be appointed from the members of the local assembly as servant leaders. Beneath them were workers, organizers and get it done folks called deacons. I do not see the pastor or pulpit minister assuming the role of church leader and guardian in scriptural references. Yet, I am not saying such is an illicit role by any means. So, yes, the format of government is considered because it is needed for the nurturing and protection of the belief which caused the assembly in the first place.

Do we identify ourselves more closely with the people or the institution? I personally identify more closely with the people, yet the institution is important to me even with the many flaws and failings I see it demonstrate. Unfortunately, once in a while while on the road and stopping at a brand name church which is familiar and generally comfortable, I will find such unfriendliness that the institution is barely all left to identify with! Other times, hearts pour out with love for the visitor and the institution takes a definite back role when among such believers.

Do we identify ourselves along denominational lines and part of a pastor’s flock OR do we more automatically identify ourselves with all Jesus followers in our town? I do identify myself with my brand name but not with a “sign” announcing the brand. With Christians, I identify with Christians, regardless of brand. They need not fear my presence even if we do disagree on some points and we each may think the other flat out wrong in some areas of belief. The substance is generally sharing of the love of Christ with in us and that is what makes it work.

Does the "way we've always done it" cloud our reading of Scripture for what it really says? This used to be an automatic and clouded interpretation and application were thought crystal clear from the throne of God. It is spending much time with believers of all sorts of brand names that I have opened this heart and they have opened theirs in the best cases. We all see value in the other and see how tradition and maintenance of a brand name has directed thought beyond scriptural honesty.
Is there a new way to think about this distinction between people and institution we haven’t thought of before? There must be but it cannot be a watered down gospel meant to please all and take in all tradition. Truth must be the core…so that is the cincher and I honestly cannot give and answer. If anything, the distinction is the fact that the institution has come from the believers as a needed part of association, empowering wit the combined joints, fingers, tendons, bones and muscle of many talents in unity…The institution should be a reflection of the believers and therefore a reflection of the Bride of Christ, not believers simply being a reflection of a particular institution.

And, most importantly, are we in a posture of humility, willing to change should we need to? I sure hope I am. As for others, I cannot say. Humility can take a back seat unjustly when the institution is challenged severely. Need I say exercising this humility is difficult if we perceive a threat to our habitual ways?

There are some answers from me. Dale, thanks for the opportunity.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 2) unraveling the crisis

tomdart — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:43:11 -0000

Pathlighters post got me thinking about much of what is seen around me, here and with others from miles away with whom a love of Christ is common bond. Yes, some are eager to move away from rigidity and in doing so, some do pray to find more of Jesus. They look for an environment with others offering encouragement and support. They look for freedom in Christ and for those who recognize the working power of our Father with us through the Spirit of the Holy One. I am not talking about a Sunday service in which this working of God in us is seen but in daily living.

So, what do some do? They split, leave, go elsewhere and may begin with others a community church congregation, all aimed at solving the problems they faced in a more rigid brand name environment.
Do they succeed? A few do. A few find a renewal and revival of heart and spirit. For those Christians my heart sings. What they often find difficult is keeping this success fresh and vital and must take care not to become their own creators of a rigid environment. Traditions are not bad when supporting good. Yet, tradition is deeply ingrained and that often painted with brand name directions. Like hidden bigotry, tradition is threatened by openness and change and newness may simple seem wrong to us. This rising of ingrained tradition is possibly a fall for those seeking a new beginning.

Throwing away rigidity to become closer to Christ will sometimes present a new set of problems. For instance, a community church forms, love is espoused and practiced and through that comes acceptance and love of others, surely as Christ wants it to be. Yet, this very movement to gain freedom and employ love in the name of Christ leads to one critical error: We forget God is also a God of wrath and obedience. God has given us certain commands and through the scripture are implied directions of the believer which are pleasing to the Father. The new church may become all things to all people and the power of obedience is watered down and to some extent forgotten in the name of loving all people. Forgotten is that Godly discipline comes from love and that God does chastise His own. The Word can become secondary.

What do I do? I stick where I am. I do the best I can there and work the best I can with others. You see, I am not so sure I am strong enough to trek out and start something fresh or that for me it would even be wise. I try to encourage others and find in return I am encouraged and strengthened. Above all, I make prayer fully available and do not in any way discount the driving force of His Spirit through us if we only follow His direction, unknown at times until hindsight shows magnificent wisdom has worked through us. As Pathligher said, we remember we need more of Jesus and to take on his yoke and learning from Him. I can do that anywhere. Unfortunately, some believers do not see that clearly and become quite discouraged in the process. That in itself is a task to approach. I certainly get distracted from that goal all the time.

If you are somewhere with an assembly and feel you must leave where you are, please do so with prayer for the guidance of God. Remember, there is always a lot of milk being needed by some while others are ready for the meat of it all. We must find a way to be part of the weak and the strong and not judge ourselves higher than we should. We are all lacking but for Christ.

While I find strength in my fellow believers and encouragement to keep on keeping on, sometimes I do fail in miserable ways. In time, I am always picked up again with strength I cannot generate myself. I find the most strength when my “institution” is my daily life and my “religion” is the basis of it. When I am realizing the love given me and living that as best I can, I am still a poor reflection of Jesus but know where I stand. I cannot desert my weaker believers any more than stronger ones have not deserted me. Mentally, the earthly brand name institution is only a part of my relationship with the Father but it is an important one, in general reflecting my ingrained belief structure. Yet, more important to me is daily life among others …I only wish more believers were in that space. As it is, I am fortunate to find a few believers everywhere when brand name is discounted and following Christ is the key. I really need other believers in my life and that is not handed to me by an institution but for the relationships formed in joined hearts. There is not a program or 5 year plan which will give me guaranteed relationships with others through love. That comes from…well, answer that for yourself.

Ok, I have rambled on for a while. My next post will likely be more useful since what I intend to do is not speak and speak but to answer the questions Dale presented to start section 2, all from my point of view. We do, regardless of what we may say and wish, we do live as we do right now and I live with the congregation of which I am a member. Sure, I want change. Sure, I do not want my congregation trapped in its own way when that may be much more pleasing to God if altered. Then again, I am a single member of that group of about 300 folks. Most actions by my wife and by me which reflect Christ are not at a building and generally not on Sunday, though we are there when the doors open most of the time. I take part in the service and she teaches a kids Sunday morning class.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 2) unraveling the crisis

tomdart — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:13:18 -0000

Sorry if I have gotten carried away with comments on my first day here. Tell me if I stray too far off topic.

In considering churches in general ( not the universal assembly or kingdom of Christians) I read this passage from Revelation 2:1-4. The interesting part is the first paragraph below which is words of praise, good words about the church. What congregation today would not be pleased to have similar words said about them. Ahh..time to pat ourselves on the back because of good deeds, hard work, perseverance, no toleration of wickedness. Yet the kicker is next and apparently counts more than all the rest: They have forgotten their first love.
“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: now your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

How easily a church can fall into this very situation. I wonder, have churches forgotten their first love and have some not known it from the get go? Scary as it is, has my church done this very thing? Have we substituted other things for our first love?

Return THE FIRST LOVE to the church and the church should become something fresh and new again. How to do that? First, someone please define FIRST LOVE as the bible means it. And get ready to gain some new converts to Christ and to loose a few pew warmers.

Is this a clue as to part of what needs to be done? I will appreciate any comments on this, including you definition of THE FIRST LOVE we are to live and how to instill that afresh in settled members. I personally have not seen this done beyond a few individuals.

What we "believe our church to be" considering Dale's fine lists above certainly is affected by our self image of how good we are in God's eyes and how we "are doing" as individuals and as congregation with responsibility to that group.

I see re-discovering our First Love as a good starting point and I see that as a good direction for my heart. So, where to look and find this Love?

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

tomdart — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:21:34 -0000

Dale, you heard me clearly. Now, don't get me wrong and think I belive the Christian lives alone with God. We need each other and are encouraged and empowered through others. Prayer is through others as is correction and laughter and joy and praise to God and Christ in our lives. I am glad to be part of a congregation. However, as that congregation studies its future and budget I wish things were different and we were more willing to depend on God and the power of Him in Christ and the Spirit to care for us and shape our future better than we can plan ahead.

Today is my first visit to your blog and very much appreciate the thoughts of other posters, including you insightful replies.

Interesting how we discuss so openly here and feel no need to push our "brandname". Fewer walls of that sort may help the relational aspect with others. After all, is not our covenant with God relational?
God Bless.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

tomdart — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:32:27 -0000

A strong Christian man who is part of my congregation said, “I believe to be truly close to Christ we must be involved with people.” The involvement he referenced was not choir practice, youth devo, a pew seat and a few hand shakes. People are hurting or need help both in the congregation and out. People need to know Christ and the working power of His Spirit in our lives, the power of prayer and the forgiveness God has provided graciously. These people are both in and outside the local church organization. Those outside could live a life and die without seeing the concern and example of a believer who reflects Christ in daily life, that is, unless the believer goes out and is deliberately reaching to others.

How to pull this off? First of all, if a congregation was insistent on this sort of action by its membership the membership would likely plummet. “If we do that some will leave”. Yes they would because being a reflection of Christ is not warming a pew on Sunday. Of course, a congregation cannot force Christ-like lives from its members and it must come from the member, self will and love of the Father enough to do His will.

This is what I would like to see happen. It is the sort of thing Voice of the Martyrs proves is possible but most of us want little part of doing. We do not want persecution and most are very, very fortunate how easy we have our Christianity. I wonder how fortunate we really are in the eyes of our creator and maker.

One thing about it, the action I suggest is not generational by nature. Each generation is uniquely equipped to reach its own and be involved with others, showing Christ in actions and teaching as opportunities are made and presented. I know, this is too ideal a goal and would mean great changes for most.