Comments on: Liturgical Theology 2 | What’s in your pneumatology?

By: Sivin

Sivin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:45:05 +0000

Thanks for this ongoing interaction with Simon Chan’s Book. He’s very close by to Malaysia in Singapore!

By: carolss

carolss — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:44:57 +0000

Quote-But if the church really is the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then we cannot lightly discard it, even when it seems ineffective or obtuse.
Is it me or does it often appear as if those not yet redeemed into the church sometimes see more clearly the ‘self-righteous, filled-with-hot-air’ posturing of the church, i.e. Ted Haggard story, almost to the extent of an ‘Emperor Has No Clothes’ kind of sight? I’ve been reading a book on church history and as I read, it appears that the 1st century church had simpler and purer motives to live as an embodied witness (not to mention the threat of martyrdom). As time went on, things became more complicated and I acknowledge that a great deal of energy went towards refuting heresies. Yet for all the time/energy/money that has passed through the hands of those in church stewardship, the church living as an embodied witness ‘appears’ more institutionalized than organic. As I reflected on your post I wondered, ‘Is the Gospel first the story of God redeeming his own, Israel?’ I would answer, ‘Yes, but what Jesus accomplished is for not only for the Jew, but also Gentles.’ What may be difficult for the ‘The Body of Christ’ is acknowledging ‘The Emperor (Empire?) Has No Clothes,’ and shift towards relying more on the Spirit to guide us towards what needs put on and what needs thrown away.

By: Benjamin Sternke

Benjamin Sternke — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:53:34 +0000

Docetic refers to the early heresy that Jesus only seemed to be human, but that his body was actually an illusion (docetism comes from the Greek word for “to seem” – read more about it here). It was more palatable for Greeks who believed the physical world was evil and transitory. They couldn’t imagine that a truly divine being would actually inhabit a body. So to preach a “docetic” gospel would be to preach a disembodied gospel, one that is a high-minded ideal but never actually takes on flesh – without the church in all her “embodiedness” the gospel is just a nice idea.

By: cindyH

cindyH — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:42:45 +0000

Those are good questions at the end. I haven’t found a good balance between giving the Church a healthy critique and dousing it with shaming commentary.
I’ve found recently that the more I focus on what *I’m* supposed to be doing (being kind, not right), the less I worry about what the Church is doing wrong. It would help if the Church wasn’t always trying to save face, instead of simply welcoming in humility the criticisms leveled at her. Sometimes true ‘love’ is tough love. I hate that. ) Btw, what is ‘docetic’?

By: Zachary Kaufman

Zachary Kaufman — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:11:03 +0000

I love talking about church. I agree with what Chan has to say. One thing I’ve unpacked in my mind and that I’ve learned from doing it the wrong way is how we discuss the church today. I have to be careful. If Jesus refers to the church as his bride, than He’s bound to make a very angry Groom when She’s insulted. I think we’ve all met people to declare to be “fed up” with church and go about pointing out Her faults. I’ve been one of them. Yet, if someone was to insult my bride, they’d be in for something huge.
If we are the church, then we’ve got to be content with growth and change.
When we, people, were growing up we were made fun of, our bodies growing, our voices changing, and our minds deepening – it was a scary process. However, the result, was unavoidable and easier when guided and cherished and nurtured. We’ve got to LOVE the church, like she deserves to be loved, even when she makes mistakes.

By: Existential Punk

Existential Punk — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:21:09 +0000

Ben,
Thanks for this as there is some great stuff to chew on here. It makes me think about Brian McLaren says we are part of God’s story. So, if that is the case, and i believe it is, then God’s story is continuing on with each and every one of us and therefore, cannot be static. God is about being holistic and inclusive. Again, thanks. i am so glad i found your blog as it is so enriching! Merry Christmas! Adele

By: Benjamin Sternke

Benjamin Sternke — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:12:16 +0000

It’s a tricky thing, uniting churches. Here in Fort Wayne we’ve seen some good strides in that direction, but are by no means at a place where I would say there is a corporate sense of “we’re all in this together” among churches. I guess we keep praying Jesus’ prayer from John 17 and keep acting in such a way that we facilitate unity instead of hinder it.

By: Nathan Bubna

Nathan Bubna — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:50:16 +0000

Awesome. I whole-heartedly agree. This really helps to embody and clarify things that i’ve been feeling and thinking on this subject for some time now. This also has huge implications for ecumenism and the unity of believers. Despite all our fragmentation and politics organizationally, we are one. Now, how can we act like that?
God has been laying this on my heart for years. I would love to be able to see the churches of Portland act as the Church of Portland and view themselves as such. Not that i want organizational or administrative unification. I just want our actions to the city and our self-understanding to reflect this truth. I just don’t know how to chase this vision…