Being vs. Doing, Cont.

I believe this identity crisis is rampant in our churches. When I was a kid, a Christian band put out a song which hinted at and attempted to correct some of our confusion:

You can’t go to church as some people say
the common terminology we use everyday
you can go to a building that is some thing you can do
but you can’t go to church cuz the church is you

Obviously the lyrics are lacking poetically, however I can appreciate the sentiment. Is the church the building? Or is it the group of people who gather inside the building? Nowadays we are even more confused, as evidenced by a whole genre of Christian books designed to help us “Do Church.” Now the word ‘church’ is being used to describe the collective activities of a group of people. I believe among orthodox evangelical churches, we are especially weak in our Ecclesiology, and could use some beefing up in this doctrinal area. (I think this is further evidenced by the some of the names we give our local congregations that certainly refer more to the building/activities than to the people, i.e., “temple,” “chapel,” “house of prayer,” etc.)

Briefly, the Church is primarily an ontological reality. What in the world does that mean? It must be defined primarily in terms of what it is, and only secondarily in terms of where it meets or the activities in which it engages. The Church is the bride and body of Christ; the family of the redeemed; the community of faith. Certainly she does a whole lot of things, and meets in a whole lot of places. But these are secondary and flow out of her identity.

Imagine how confused we would be if we used the same English word, “family” to describe not only our biological relations, but also the buildings (houses) in which we live. Then imagine how much more confused we would be if a genre of books came out crying, “We need to change the way we DO family.” Now family is a group of relationships, a building, and a group of activities!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these books are unneeded or unhelpful. All I’m trying to say is that we need to define the church primarily in terms of its relationship to God (and itself) and only secondarily in terms of the activities it carries out or where it meets. Why? Because what we do and where we meet flows out of who we are. Additionally, this ontological focus reminds us that each individual member within the community is valuable to God and to the community primarily because he/she is a child of God and a brother or sister in Christ. It’s easier to love one another, since we are family. It’s harder to show favoritism toward the “more gifted” or “rich,” because we understand that the Gospel renders us equally needy, and gloriously redeemed. Finally, defining ourselves primarily in terms of who we are puts God at the center because it is He who has made us who we are. (As opposed to a deeds-oriented definition that puts our attention on what we do for God). Let us first and foremost Be the Church!