conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Bless you, dear one, you've gripped my question. And I appreciate the honesty of your answer.

Wow. I answered it? Who knew. I think there is still more to be said, but that can wait.

Tripp and Megan:

I'm not sure, if you take the Gospels and Epistles on their face (but that's another blog) how you can't but get the understanding that community/Church/Body of Christ is a non-negotiable of faith.

But let that be for now.

I think one can safely say, at very least, that if Christ did not demand it, he certainly assumed it. That for him, there was no other Christian reality. To be Christian was to be in community; one did not come without the other.

This is interesting, as I think back to our discussions about community (ages ago, Tripp!)--and as we know, I'm not a scriptural expert, nor would I want to be. But I recall that Jesus talks a lot about personal responsibility for one's actions, and very little about formation of a church per se. The quote you cited about Peter as the Rock has always kind of piqued my curiousity as to what the word being translated as "church" actually is.... or was. Call me a literalist, ok. But if Christ was speaking Hebrew to his disciples, what was he saying? On this rock I will found my synagogue? That makes no sense at all, a synagogue is just a building. If he was speaking Aramaic, the original language of the written gospels (or Greek, correct me if I'm wrong) I still wonder then what word brings us to Jerome's choice of Ecclesia as the expression of the concept.... It's sort of retroactive, because "ecclesia" by then meant a christian church, so it's like a retroactive translation. Do you see what I'm getting at? If the original words of Jesus, passed along telephone-game-style from his mouth to the disciples to the Gospel writers to Jerome to King James, could have been translated another way--as "school" or "congregation" or "community" or "rabbinate" or "gymnasium" (just kidding) then does that unhinge the whole idea that Christ was establishing a Church and not just teaching individuals a new and better way to live? Where else is the concept implied through Christ's actions rather than specific words, and does it appear in more than one of the gospels?

For that matter, if Jesus didn't speak latin, what's he doing making a pun on Peter's name? :]

Cathy:

It's my understanding that the pun that exists in the Greek text of Matthew operates also in Aramaic.

Be that as it may, the Gospels do quite clearly present Jesus as founding a "little flock." Whether the word ekklesia (or its Aramaic equivalent) was explicitly and widely used by our Lord need not distract from the question as to Jesus' forming of a community around his Person.

On a related matter, the understanding of persons as individuals is an outgrowth of the Englightenment and was not a concept understood as such in the ancient, biblical or late antique worlds.

That last is a good point, Clifton. I'd been wondering where you were.

Tripp, I didn't say you'd answered it completely. ;-) Far from it. But, you got as far as admitting that church membership is not absolutely required of a Christian. I'm impressed by that.

Cathy, good questions!

So, it's not so much that you have to belong to a group in order to follow Jesus, as that if you follow Jesus, you inevitably belong to a group. And in many ways, I thnk that's true. That's why I cringe, for example, when folks like Jerry Falwell or John Spong start to pontificate. Not because I agree with what they're saying, but that if they are identified as Christian, then somehow I as a Christian am affected by their behavior, and seen through a lens that they also color. An important reminder that my behavior also affects and colors others, that I am not solely an independent individual, but part of a community of faith-- in the church I attend, but also in a larger sense.

it is my understanding (from N.T. Wright) that Jesus' ministry was dramatically (in actions) and doctrinally (in teaching) the re-enactment of the Exodus (the forming of the community of God's people), and the enactment of the Exile (or return from exile, which is the re-consitition of God's community). The Exodus and the return from Exile were both unfinished event which only Jesus could complete.

So, while Jesus does not say, "join my community" his entire ministry says "here is the community which God always intended, but can only happen in/thru/by me"

I think the point I was getting at was that any theological assumption that relies too heavily on a single passage of scripture is inevitably flawed; but remember I look at the NT with the eyes of a historian, not a theologian.

You're right, Clifton, Latin "petra" is a borrow word from the Greek; I hadn't realized this, though it seems odd it would work in Aramaic too--isn't Aramaic a semitic language?

I do, however, debate your statement that the concept of individual responsibility is purely a product of the enlightenment. Judaism has always been about personal choice and responsibility; each person is responsible for keeping the commandments (though admittedly for the good of his community.) This is why the Torah provides endless fodder for talmudic debate and discussion: does this passage apply to everyone? What circumstances could change or affect this law? A famous one is the debate over whether it's ok to break the Yom Kippur fast if you're ill and not eating would worsen your condition. If a concept of persons as individuals didn't exist until the enlightenment, what would be the purpose of that halakhic discussion?

I also would say that there is a difference between a "community" and an organized church. I could see Jesus envisioning a community like the loosely organized schools that formed around Greek philosphers, and that's not quite the same thing as what ecclesia came to mean by the time of Jerome.

Cathy:

I may be mistaken about the Aramaic, but it's something that stuck in my mind from Bible college days. If you find to the contrary, do let me know.

It's true that the concept of person, even if an ill-defined one, was known, but knowing oneself as a person and knowing oneself as an individual are two different things. Personhood (in the ancient and in the biblical senses) entails communal associations, which are given more than chosen. The individual, however, is an isolated unit who chooses the associations he or she wants to have, or chooses to have none at all. The individual is an autonomous unit (a concept unique to the Englightenment and after).

You're right to highlight person responsibility and accountability, but that is a far different thing than individual autonomy.

honestly, i have always been uncomfortable with friends and people who say, "but i don't need church/community to be a Christian." This may paritially come from being an extrovert. but i also feel that it is through community that i can learn more about myself, my faith, and God. Only through discussions can i check out my thoughts and ideas.

it's where i learn about and practice my spiritual gifts. if i'm responding to Jesus' call to serve the hungry and poor, i come into contact with people. i may be asked why i'm doing it. then, suddenly, i'm in a conversation about my Christian calling to serve.

also - what about "whenver 2 or 3 are gathered, I am in the midst of them"? i've always been of the mind that i'm empowered individually, but i'm empowered differently within the community.

Megan: I realize that I am not done responding to you. There is much more to be done in this. However, it is a good start and has raised some interetsing questions already.

Now, regarding "church membership" vs. "participation in Christian commuinity...This is something that people in the few centuries have been arguing about. This is one reason why "non-denominational" traditions exist. Yet they too struggle with belonging to community. Willow Creek has a covenant that you sign and renew ever two years. This is a church who claims no denominationa affiliation for several reasons, one of which is that institutions pose certain stumbling blocks toward faith. They are in search for the ego-less community. Um, they have failed to be certain, but this is what we are all getting at.

When church starts to live solely for its own sake, there is a problem. This is the tension in our era, I think. We have communities that are fearful against the world, so they turn inward. The fractured nature of The Church for the last 1,000 years since the Great Schism between East and West has only been exasorbated over time. Thus, we look to ourselves and not to our ministry in the world. Megan, what you have criticised the church for, I think, stems from this.

More on this later guys.

Heather, do you think that those who choose not to participate in a church, live lives that are totally devoid of community and the opportunities that community offers for a person to practice Christianity?