[OBW]

I think that one problem that plagues almost all analyses of "church" or the "ekklesia" is that it is not entirely certain in what context the word is being used as a general term concerning the totality of believers, whether in a small area or region or even universally, or of a single, practical meeting/assembly of believers.

There are letters to the church at a place that includes a reference to the church in a certain person's house. I would presume that in the first context, they were included within the intent of the letter, and yet they are also singled out. I realize that some assert that these house church references are intended to be someones who are in a different assembly, at least on a regular basis from those who are being addressed in the letter.

But the idea that church should just be so small that it just happens is probably not entirely supported by the accounts in the NT. For example, Corinth was a large enough group that Paul told them to cut down the number who participated in certain ways during any one meeting. And it was someone's responsibility, whether singly or a few together, who had the "job" of organizing it to be that way.

And we just spit nails at the very word "organize." Why? I'm really not sure. There was organization from the very beginning. We have been told that the very short-term version of "everybody is a priest" was the norm and God had to settle for a subset to take on the responsibility. Moses eventually took his father-in-law's advice and got 70 elders of the tribes to help administer things. Maybe — just maybe — rather than being the result of our failure, it is the forerunner of "gifts of the Spirit" in operation. God gave us a few weeks to try out being all things all the time and we got to see how futile it was.

Just like there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers, and not apostleprophetevangelistshephedteachers. That is not the way it is set out. There are elders, not a nation of elders. There are shepherds and a flock, not a flock of shepherds.

And the Spirit freely moves within each of us to accomplish our part in the entirety of what is the church, the work, the ministry. And that includes being those that are ministered to. But we don't like being less than essentially self-sufficient. So we think that is it spiritual to have formless meetings to which no one has given advance consideration. Why do we decide what will be covered more than 1 minute before we start? We might otherwise quench the Spirit.

I doubt it. This is a fantasy created from our history in the LRC. We still think that there is a way to make the ideal work. But it was not more likely to work than all the children of Israel simply getting it right on their own. Yes, it is true that the Spirit is now within us rather than external to us. But the accounts seem to indicate that we still need teachers. And leaders still need to get together and figure things out. And everyone's thoughts are not the way it ultimately turns out. (Otherwise, there would have been nothing to discuss in the first place because everyone would have already been on the same page.)

I do not dismiss the reality of very small churches, like house churches, that generally have less logistical issues than larger ones. But at some level, without being connected to either a number of other similar groups, or to one or more larger groups, they will find themselves incomplete. It will require too many multi-gifted persons to be all that is needed.

And the main reason I think that this is true is because there is no evidence that it has ever been any other way. And while it is true that just because it never has doesn't mean it can't be, it is also true that there have been quite a few people trying at different times over many years and they still haven't figured it out.

I don't think that church was intended to be figured out. It was just a fact. It was to be the community of believers. The practical connection between them. I do not see as many "musts" related to that connection as Lee and other purveyors of "superior" groups tend to insist upon. The fact that Jesus said he would "build" it and that it would prevail doesn't mean that we are just bystanders, or that it is some very specific thing that operates in a particular manner because that is what the Spirit causes to happen in those (few) who manage to actually allow the Spirit to take them over.

Maybe the point about church, universally or as an assembly, is that it is the church, not how it is organized, managed, administrated, packaged, etc. The point isn't "real, quick, and fresh" and it isn't traditions. But both can happen. It isn't communion from little cups and pre-made wafers or from single cups and hand-broken unleavened while-flour, unleavened crisps. Both work. It isn't hymns or praise songs. A capella, piano and organ, or rock bands. Pews, stadium seating, or folding chairs. Arched rows or circles. Ancient or modern.

But the oldest is still new today, while the newest is still connected to 2,000 years of history.

And rather than discuss the problems related to the LRC, we — a bunch of "don't really know anything" Joes — want to reinvent church. And think we are smart enough to do it. I know I come off like I think I am pretty smart at times. But even if I am, I have become convinced that I am not smart enough to be the driving fin something like this. And when those who have truly studied such things look at these kinds of discussions and simply see the next splinter in the making, I think it is time to listen to someone else. I will not close my mind as I do that. I learned that lesson. But I do accept that there are those that know more about this than me.

And even with our collective wisdom, I'm not sure that we are as smart as we think. We like to throw out a verse here or there as if it is the end-all to a particular line of thought. Sometimes it is. But not as often as we think. Mostly, I find the verses on these subjects to provide the evidence that it is harder than we think. There are more questions than answers. And that is not bad. Sometimes, the question is the thing that leads to the answer. Simply seeking the answer does not always satisfy the real question. Just a question.

(I'm sure that was too fuzzy to be very meaningful. I better quit while I'm not too far behind.)