Over the years my answer to this question has flipped flopped many times. Sometimes I am sure the church exists for those outside the church, the yet-to-be Christians. Sometimes I am sure the church exists for those inside the church, the all-ready-Christians.
The reason this debate continues in my head is because it has profound implication for my philosophy of ministry, the purpose of church and the way I teach Scripture.
The reasons for both answers are really simple.
If church exists for the yet-to-be Christians:
- The environment needs to be non-threatening.
- The teaching needs to be accessible, easily digestible and highly applicable.
- The structure needs to be simple to engage with.
- The motif centers more on grace than law.
- The reason for church is about introductions to the faith.
- The tolerance for immaturity is high.
- The hope for involvement is low.
- The inside church culture is almost seamless with the outside church culture.
- The approach is spoon feeding.
- The greatest sin is to be distasteful.
- The vocabulary is common and ordinary.
- The expectation is on the mechanism or institution to make converts and disciples.
If the church exists for the already Christians:
- The environment is not as important has the information.
- The teaching is challenging, comprehensive and direct.
- The structure is true to Scripture.
- The motif centers more on truth than relevance.
- The reason for church is about equipping the faithful.
- The tolerance for immaturity is low.
- The hope for involvement is high.
- The inside church culture does not need to match the outside church culture.
- The approach expects self initiation.
- The greatest sin is “easybelieveism.”
- The vocabulary is theological and biblical.
- The expectation is on the people to make converts and disciples.
However, I think for the last 15 years of ministry I have been advocating for the answer wrong (not matter if I was for the insider or the outsider.)
Q: Who does the church exist for?
A: Everyone who needs Jesus.
Debate over.
1 comment:
This is so interesting to me I just have to comment. I didn't realize that this was such a debate in the church. I was always under the notion, as a member of TNLC, that the church is intended for both. I wasn't raised in the church and I wouldn't have known how to become a Christian without a church accepting me just as I am and walking me through the steps of becoming a Christian. I think that you, Chip, have an amazing way of helping those of us who are yet-to-be Christians however still engaging and stimulating those who already are Christians. I can recognize the challenge of blending these two thoughts of teaching but I can only see this as the reason for the church to exist. I am not sure where I fit into these 2 categories but I always feel that I take something very valuable home with me when you are done teaching. If the church existed only for one party or the other I think there would be a lack in what we're there to do and be. I believe we are there to learn how to spread the word of God. If we have been in the church our whole life then we should accept more individual responsibility in furthering our faith. If we are there as a yet-to-be Christian we should be taught as those who are already Christians have been taught and learn by their example.
Post a Comment