Comments on: Faith Lessons by Ray Vander Laan: The Time Had Fully Come (The Essenes)

By: dell kimberly

dell kimberly — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:47:09 +0000

The building can be a tool or a detriment. It is what the group makes it. We have chosen not to allow the building to be a hindrance. We choose to live as Christians rather than do religion. We stress these things: First, we stress Jesus rather than doctrine. Second, we try to look for those in the ditch, much like the good Samaritan. Third, we try to reach across our comfort zone. This may not work for every group but it has worked for us. The Gospel continues to reach souls. This fact can be proven, if you take the message to enough you will find those who are searching. The problem is not many are searching inside the walls of our buildings.

By: David P Himes

David P Himes — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:14:31 +0000

Rey,
The building, per se, is not an issue. But rather, it's the impact the building has on the group. With a building, we have to be concerned about whether contributions are keeping up with the mortgage payments. The need for contributions drives to "never do anything someone dislikes" for fear they would leave and take their contributions with them. The building and the resulting "organization" drives the focus away from being preoccupied with loving one another, the way Jesus loved us.

Can we be the kind of people we ought to be and still have a building? Of course, we can. But the building can be as much as obstacle to righteous living as it can be an aid.

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:25:28 +0000

Uh, Rey, I'm not clergy. I'm a lawyer in private practice working more than full-time.

And I didn't say that having a building is per se monastic. Here's what I said,

For discussion, consider –

…

* Church buildings (as opposed to meeting in schools, coffee shops, etc.)

…

In the discussion, note that some of these are not necessarily monastic (don’t push out of society so that we no longer influence society).

The question is whether we'd be more effective if we met more off campus more and behind our walls less. Maybe we do it in small groups or classes, etc. Many churches are experimenting with exactly this. It's an interesting question to me. And it's a question.

By: rey

rey — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:57:04 +0000

I don't see how you can say that having church buildings means we've left the world. Only a cleric could hold such a stupid opinion. I'm in the world all day for five days a week. I'm in the church building for between 2-4 hours on Sunday depending on the length of the service. Yet somehow, having a church building means having left the world? Please. This is the same idiocy as those out of touch preachers who have no secular job and act like not showing up for the Wednesday night service (because you've got to work for a living) is a sin. You're out of touch with reality. And Paul says in 1st Cor 11 "Don't you have houses to eat and drink in????" when he chides them for practicing a pot luck in place of the Lord's Supper. The wording implies they were not meeting in a private home! But whatever–I'm sure the monastic clergy who have no idea what the world is know much better than those of us with jobs what it means to leave the world, and somehow to them (you) it doesn't mean to rob the church for your livelihood but rather it means to take a few hours of your Sunday off to go worship the Lord. Typical out of touch clergyism.