Today’s guest post comes to us from Scot McKnight, a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. Scot has also authored more than fifty books and is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.
A local church has the capacity to adjust itself to its environment and, so long as the environment is redemptive, adjustment is good. When the environment is not redemptive, adjustment is compromised. I believe this is why many today use the term “institutional” for the church: they are saying the church has become not what it should be but more like culture.
To rethink what the church needs to be we need to return to the period of the apostles (and behind them to Jesus’ own kingdom vision) to see how they thought about the church. James Thompson, author of The Church according to Paul, has some observations about Paul’s churches that deserve strong consideration today. Here are ten theses in Thompson’s own words. [My words in brackets.]
1. He nowhere mentions administrative institutions that coordinate or have authority over the activities of the local community. [That is, no pope, no monarchical bishops, no centralization; local, local, local.]
2. That Paul thought of the church in universal terms is most evident in his use of the terms ekklesia and hagioi (“saints”). Although he employs both terms for the local community, the language is from Israel and expresses Paul’s understanding of the continuity of the church with Israel as the people of God.
3. Although Paul gives no indication that he envisions a universal church that was administratively connected, he envisions koinonia within the local church and among the churches at the regional and international level. [The “unity” is a unity in fellowship.]
Click here to read the full article and remaining seven observations.
Your partner in ministry,
Nelson
Share This Post
© Nelson Searcy. All Rights Reserved.
About Nelson Searcy
