I agree in part

I just don’t believe that you can seek (chase) Him and not find Him. His grace won’t allow it. He tells us that we WILL find Him…………I don’t think we will ever arrive to the totality of Him while in this life and that’s where the comfort of His promise to complete us steps in. But while I’m seeking Him, I don’t want to do it alone, and He wouldn’t want that either…

I think sometimes we may think we are chasing Christ but often are not, but I do believe even in our missing of Him, His promise to “complete” is ever before us. So I am not threatned by journeys for truth, I really think they shape us. So from that perspective you are right.

I’m not sure what you mean by “see if Brian will let [us]…” I belong to Christ’s church and have the liberty of meeting where I please. I’m not interested in becoming a church within a church because I don’t think that’s consistent with scripture. I’m also don’t believe that being “dogmatic” about what chasing hard after what I believe Scripture teaches will cause me to lose opportunity to love and walk with other believers. I do that now with many believers of all different denominations, ecclesiologies, theologies, etc. I don’t believe that how I choose to fellowship has any bearings on my relationship with other believers as long as I am not trying to proselytize them and tell them that they are wrong if they don’t see things the way I do.

In chasing Christ, I don’t think it’s possible to miss Him. He’s always in view as I struggle, wrestle, toil, and tear to try to get to Him. All I want is to pursue Him in immediate community with those who also see Him as I do and want to express Him in a way that is consistent with the biblical DNA. I will always continue to fellowship with those who see Him differently than I do, but I want to PURSUE Him with those who see Him the way I do.

I don’t know if this is right but I don’t believe that it’s wrong. What do you think?

P.S. As for the traditional structure, I would only do that if it looked like Apex and met maybe once a month or bi-monthly. Anything else (I believe) would cause people to slide back into the same traditional mode of thinking because it is set up in such a way…

Whew!!!!!! Whew!!!! I go back and forth and I know I sound double minded, but in my heart of hearts I believe like you. I believe that this can happen but we refuse to wrestle hard for it. I guess my question is about the abandonement and should we, or should we stay and fight, or should we be a church within a church, but that seems to be very inconsistent to me. I don’t want to become a pharisee for form and miss Christ in the process. I don’t want to be so dogmatic that I lose out on the opportunity love others and walk with them, but often times the very structure prevents us from walking with others, it seem like we compartmentalize our lives to Sunday and thus community becomes a mute point. I even know groups that have the so called structure right; however, community is still eluding them like Redd Foxx did the IRS.

But I am there in the tension. The tension between what I believe and what I see. And I want what I believe, but I don’t want to be schismatic; however, most people believe that is going to far. So I don’t know.

Maybe we need to all talk, maybe Brian and them can let you guys help us so it won’t be a pick this or that type thing just maybe a different vision type thing. I was really thinking of maybe tweaking the structure to be more in tune with the culture (something that looks somewhat traditional) but one that has the DNA that you talked about from Viola. Whats your thoughts?

I wrestling, just wrestling and I don’t know. I am an idealist maybe……..

I think you are my siamese twin…we’re connected at the brain. My biggest struggle is that I agree wholeheartedly with Frank Viola’s 4 strands of the DNA of the Church:

1. It will always express the fact that Christ is head; not man
2. Every member-functioning
3. It expresses the theology of the New Testament
4. It’s grounded in the fellowship of the triune God

…And I have yet to see that. I have gotten some very interesting theories from other believers about why I haven’t seen it and none of them seem to be good enough. I KNOW this type of community exists SOMEWHERE because Frank gives many examples of fellowships that he’s seen around the world that DO have that DNA. I also stuggle with what I believe community in Acts looks like and how I have yet to experience that. I often wonder am I overshooting and if I should just “settle” and “go along to get along” but my spirit does not rest well with settling. However, I don’t know what else to do. I am relentless when it comes to pursuing what I believe the scriptures teach, but I too have to consider my husband and what he goes through as I wrestle. I’m sure he’s tired, but I thank God that he has been patient with me and has listened intently to me and lovingly corrects me in the areas where I sin about the situation (I am quick to anger…urrrrggghh)……I have some other struggles that we can talk about privately because I don’t want to post them publicly. I think about it OFTEN and honestly dread times of fellowship and would rather be alone in my home away from the rest of the world where it’s safe. I am so tired, Lionel…so tired. I’m starting to think that maybe it’s just me and I’m wrong. Maybe. I don’t know…

1. Hmmm, no I don’t think I can. At least not off the top of my head. In support of your point, I think of the scenario with the church at Corinth and the instructions Paul gave them regarding the wayward brother.

2. True

3. True, Paul was an Apostle. My line of thinking behind him being an overseer was that the letters he wrote were usually in response to issues that were going on in different congregations, providing direction and instruction. I see you’re point about him not being an overseer by his own admission, and by his lack of being [permanently] present in the congregations [indefinitely]. ( [ ] are my clarifiers).

4. I’m with you on that. While I want to agree with you 100%, there’s a little voice in the back of my head that say, you need leadership at the beginning, which could be seen as a lack of faith for the Holy Spirit to motivate believers to do what we’re called to do. Pray for me on that one.

5. So basically, we have our order wrong. Instead of beginning with overseers and such, believers should just meet and then (sometime down the road) recognize overseers who’ve already emerged? Then the structure of the meeting will be decided by those in attendance? I’d love to see that in action. Unity, humility and fruit would be key.

I seem to be trying to reconcile 2 seemingly opposed things in my mind. Meeting with the larger congregation and meeting in small groups. In my thinking I’ve always looked at meeting at the “church” as corporate worship whereas meeting in smaller groups were more for sharpening each other and accountability. Now I’m asking myself why I think those things are in opposition and can only be accomplished in one setting or the other?

The question from my previous post is a difficult one. I don’t have the answer for that. To think that everyone in the US would abandon their ICs, I don’t see how that would happen. At least not short of a move of the Lord. Also, the more organic model that you’re speaking of seems to be the way things are going in countries where Christian persecution (specifically killing and imprisonement) is bananas! Since they don’t have the US first amendment rights of freedom speech, religion, and assembly, they’re forced to meet in houses and underground. Much like the NT church.

Very interesting post. Thanks for provoking us to evaluate our thinking and make sure we’re in line with truth! I’m also enjoying the dialogue.

1. We are called to deal with wayward saints. Can you show me a place in scripture that says leaders are to deal with wayward saints?

2. If we are praying in the Spirit then favoritism and such will not be an issue; however, if they are that will happen with leaders there also, those leaders who are picking other leaders may have been favorites also.

3. Paul was an Apostle, who left churches with no overseers. Peter calls himself an overseer, I don’t see Paul ever using such language.

4. I beleive ALL churches should have overseers, just not immediately. I believe we have to see their love in action first

5. Your last question is the question I am asking. Lets keep the dialogue going I am enjoying it.

A few questions, just for my understanding:

1. If there isn’t a complete consenus regarding overseers and the 2nd option is true, then who deals with the person who has issues (if there is are no overseers in place yet)? How should they be dealt with? Then there’s also the issue of favoritism playing a role in selecting overseers. Maybe one has more charisma than another and more people like him whereas another person is more suited for the role. I’m not trying to be discouraging but just mentioning a few possibilities. There will be issues in any route namely because of our continuing imperfections.

2. You mentioned that there weren’t overseers in the some of the NT churches (I did kind of consider Paul to be an overseer. In your opinion, would that be incorrect? Even so Paul sent others to check on the conditions of churches when he wasn’t able to do so himself). How then do we determine which congregations should have overseers and which ones shouldn’t?

I guess the real heart of the matter seems to be – How to we combat tradition and get back to the business at hand?