sol cafe food for thought: Marks of the Church

food for thought @ the sol café

Please note our small disclaimer about these links

New to Christianity? Try starting with some appetizers.

Marks of the Church

This contribution to our food for thought menu comes from the blog of Franklin Pyles, President of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) in Canada, our umbrella denomination. It's an article of particular importance to the sol cafe, I think, given the nature of our church gathering and its place in the CMA. I'd encourage you to not only discuss here, but provide some thoughtful comments on Franklin's original post.

Labels: the bigger picture

[link]

added by Black Riders

1 response(s):

Kevin says...: okay, you piqued my interest. What is a church? Where is the line in the sand, and what are the criteria for crossing that? I recently read a paper about the relationship between the temple and the church in Acts, and I've been meaning to write a comment on that here, so this seems like a good opportunity.

It seems that in the time of Acts the relationship between the temple (representing Judaism) and the church (representing "Christ followers") was quite a bit more complex, and less hostile, than we are often lead to believe. (I promise I'll get back to the question at hand.) Part of the reason for the popular misconception is the theological weight attributed to Paul's letters because of the sheer volume of them. His letters, however, are highly situational, responding to specific events, and are probably misinterpreted when we consider them as general advice. Anyways, when other parts of scripture and archaeology are considered, we find that the original church was closely connected to the temple, though separate.

Jesus went to the synagogues and to the temple. Paul continued to perform the temple sacrifices after his conversion, and James, a leader of the Jerusalem church, was highly influential with the temple leaders. See Acts 2:42-47; 5:12-16 for a description of early Christian worship life (Solomon's Portico). See Acts 3:1-10 for a story about Peter and John in the temple (Beautiful Gate). And check out Acts 21-26 for the trial of Paul (Temple Courts).

With these stories as examples, and other archaeological and historical sources as background, we can surmise that "early Christians... according to the biblical text, regularly and visibly met within the Jerusalem temple complex, initially termed simply “the temple,” then identified specifically as Solomon’s Portico... the covered portion along the eastern wall of the temple."

So what? Well, I would suggest that the temple functioned back then as more than simply a religious institution. Or rather, that the religious institution dominated society and culture in a way that is without analogy today. And so these passages, so easily unnoticed, provide helpful hints for questions like those posed above.

First, we need to agree that what is described in those passages is indeed a "church." If so, how did it function? It seems that, in addition to the oft-noted house-church movement (primarily in Paul's writing), they met together in a public place - a space that wasn't specifically meant for that purpose, but was still amenable to it. It also seems that there were spectators who stood apart - who even admired them - and didn't take part, even while crowds were joining the movement. The church was originally seen as a positive side-movement to the temple (read: "culture"). And finally, "the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, and to sharing in meals (including the Lord’s Supper), and to prayer" (Acts).

So what makes a church?

				parables \| a sol café manifesto \| community \| food \| contact \| home

	on the buffet An Introduction to Apocalyptic Symbolism I'm a Christian... resonate Congressman to take oath of office using the Koran... Church Politics Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Christian Classics Ethereal Library truth, language, and the RCL The Revised Common Lectionary We Feel Fine in the pantry May 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 June 2007 July 2007			food for thought @ the sol café Please note our small disclaimer about these links New to Christianity? Try starting with some appetizers. Then feel free to dig around our tidbits, entrees, resources, the bigger picture, or in the news items. Marks of the Church This contribution to our food for thought menu comes from the blog of Franklin Pyles, President of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) in Canada, our umbrella denomination. It's an article of particular importance to the sol cafe, I think, given the nature of our church gathering and its place in the CMA. I'd encourage you to not only discuss here, but provide some thoughtful comments on Franklin's original post. Labels: the bigger picture [link] added by Black Riders 1 response(s): Kevin says... okay, you piqued my interest. What is a church? Where is the line in the sand, and what are the criteria for crossing that? I recently read a paper about the relationship between the temple and the church in Acts, and I've been meaning to write a comment on that here, so this seems like a good opportunity. It seems that in the time of Acts the relationship between the temple (representing Judaism) and the church (representing "Christ followers") was quite a bit more complex, and less hostile, than we are often lead to believe. (I promise I'll get back to the question at hand.) Part of the reason for the popular misconception is the theological weight attributed to Paul's letters because of the sheer volume of them. His letters, however, are highly situational, responding to specific events, and are probably misinterpreted when we consider them as general advice. Anyways, when other parts of scripture and archaeology are considered, we find that the original church was closely connected to the temple, though separate. Jesus went to the synagogues and to the temple. Paul continued to perform the temple sacrifices after his conversion, and James, a leader of the Jerusalem church, was highly influential with the temple leaders. See Acts 2:42-47; 5:12-16 for a description of early Christian worship life (Solomon's Portico). See Acts 3:1-10 for a story about Peter and John in the temple (Beautiful Gate). And check out Acts 21-26 for the trial of Paul (Temple Courts). With these stories as examples, and other archaeological and historical sources as background, we can surmise that "early Christians... according to the biblical text, regularly and visibly met within the Jerusalem temple complex, initially termed simply “the temple,” then identified specifically as Solomon’s Portico... the covered portion along the eastern wall of the temple." So what? Well, I would suggest that the temple functioned back then as more than simply a religious institution. Or rather, that the religious institution dominated society and culture in a way that is without analogy today. And so these passages, so easily unnoticed, provide helpful hints for questions like those posed above. First, we need to agree that what is described in those passages is indeed a "church." If so, how did it function? It seems that, in addition to the oft-noted house-church movement (primarily in Paul's writing), they met together in a public place - a space that wasn't specifically meant for that purpose, but was still amenable to it. It also seems that there were spectators who stood apart - who even admired them - and didn't take part, even while crowds were joining the movement. The church was originally seen as a positive side-movement to the temple (read: "culture"). And finally, "the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, and to sharing in meals (including the Lord’s Supper), and to prayer" (Acts). So what makes a church? Post a Comment Links to this post: <$BlogBacklinkTitle$> <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$> posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$> Create a Link [back to the sol cafe food menu]