# What is wrong with this saying?



## PMBrooks (Jun 30, 2009)

Some younger congregations, especially those who are church plants, are using the following phrase: "Don't just go to church. You are the church." Or something similar like "Be the church!"

The stated reasons for such phrases is to get into their congregants' minds that they are not only supposed to attend church, but they are to live out the teachings of Christ everyday. Instead of having a mentality of only acting like a Christian on Sundays, they are to act like it every week. This, accompanied with preaching the Gospel, becomes their evangelism. 

While I totally agree with the motivation behind these phrases, is there anything wrong that anyone of you can see with such phrases? 

Thanks for any feedback you can give!


----------



## Hippo (Jun 30, 2009)

I do not see anything wrong with the expression, after all the Church is the body of saints more than it is just a building.

Where the statement could be in error is if going to Church was seen as being in some way opposed to being the Church. Also it is not that we have to "be the Church", we are the Church whether we act like it or not.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 30, 2009)

I say it myself. *We* are the Body of Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 30, 2009)

seems perfectly legit to me. Not sure what the objection could be.


----------



## Sven (Jun 30, 2009)

PMBrooks said:


> Some younger congregations, especially those who are church plants, are using the following phrase: "Don't just go to church. You are the church." Or something similar like "Be the church!"
> 
> The stated reasons for such phrases is to get into their congregants' minds that they are not only supposed to attend church, but they are to live out the teachings of Christ everyday. Instead of having a mentality of only acting like a Christian on Sundays, they are to act like it every week. This, accompanied with preaching the Gospel, becomes their evangelism.
> 
> ...



This statement comes right out of the emergent church movement. Inherently there is nothing wrong with the statement. The emergent folks do have a point that many evangelical christians go to church without ever really thinkin about how one is supposed to live the rest of the week. I know many people who think that all God requires of them is one hour a week on Sunday morning, the rest of the week is their time. 

While there is a legitimacy to this statement, like all other statements put out by the emergent church there is a catch. Their idea of "being the church" is nothing more than the liberal social gospel. There is little gospel content in what they do when they are "being the church." Also, "being the church" is done at the cost of sound doctrine and preaching. While the emergent church decries the false dichotomy of going to church vs. being the church, they set up their own false dichotomy between being the church and sound doctrine. 

I have no problem with the phrase in and of itself as long as people are using it to promote a social gospel which is no gospel at all.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 30, 2009)

Sven said:


> This statement comes right out of the emergent church movement. Inherently there is nothing wrong with the statement. The emergent folks do have a point that many evangelical christians go to church without ever really thinkin about how one is supposed to live the rest of the week. I know many people who think that all God requires of them is one hour a week on Sunday morning, the rest of the week is their time.
> 
> While there is a legitimacy to this statement, like all other statements put out by the emergent church there is a catch. Their idea of "being the church" is nothing more than the liberal social gospel. There is little gospel content in what they do when they are "being the church." Also, "being the church" is done at the cost of sound doctrine and preaching. While the emergent church decries the false dichotomy of going to church vs. being the church, they set up their own false dichotomy between being the church and sound doctrine.
> 
> I have no problem with the phrase in and of itself as long as people are using it to promote a social gospel which is no gospel at all.



Please reference your statement.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 30, 2009)

For clarification I would make the distinction that no individual or group of individuals being members of a local church are, themselves, whether at Pizza Hut or the ball field, are "the church". When the members of that congregation assemble *as the church* then they are the church.


1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when you come together *as a church*, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.


The church is the called out assembly *assembled* and as such they are collectively the church. We run amiss when we (even with good intentions) exhort a believer, or group of believers to *be the church* at the mall or game because *he, she, or they* *are the church*. They are believers, they are Christ's, but there at Pizza Hut they are not then and there *the church*.


----------



## Knoxienne (Jun 30, 2009)

As long as people aren't using the phrase as a rant against church membership and ecclesiastical accountability, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's all in the motive behind it.

Personally, I try to remember to say, "We left such and such at the church _building_" or "Such and such an event will take place at the church _building_" etc.


----------



## Idelette (Jun 30, 2009)

As long as people do not use that as an excuse to forsake the assembly of the church. I've heard people us it in that context before, and try to excuse themselves from worshipping as a congregation. Yet, we are to follow the pattern set forth by the early church to meet as a body to worship God and encourage one another!

"....and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." -Hebrews 10: 24-25


----------



## Sven (Jun 30, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> > This statement comes right out of the emergent church movement. Inherently there is nothing wrong with the statement. The emergent folks do have a point that many evangelical christians go to church without ever really thinkin about how one is supposed to live the rest of the week. I know many people who think that all God requires of them is one hour a week on Sunday morning, the rest of the week is their time.
> ...



Why? Do you think I'm out in left field with what I said? Here's one book I've read, but there are others I could reference.

Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger _Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures_ Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 05:23:35 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> For clarification I would make the distinction that no individual or group of individuals being members of a local church are, themselves, whether at Pizza Hut or the ball field, are "the church". When the members of that congregation assemble *as the church* then they are the church.
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when you come together *as a church*, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
> ...



Bob, you make a great point. There are those who might argue that the PB constitutes a Church, but the Admins have rightly said that the PB is NOT the Church. It is an internet board where people can let loose their ideas or talk about whatever. This is not organized as the Church, there is no church discipline here; there are no sacraments administered here; and, although some people get a little preachy, there is no preaching here. These things are what the Church assembles for. The other things like helping the poor and needy are things the church should be doing, but they are not the purpose for which the church assembles. Whenever someone says that the Church's raison d'etre is to help the poor and needy, I can almost guarantee that the social gospel lurking nearby.


----------



## CNJ (Jun 30, 2009)

*Did you mean to put a "not" in this sentence?*



Sven said:


> I have no problem with the phrase in and of itself as long as people are using it to promote a social gospel which is no gospel at all.



Steven (Sven) should this sentence read "I have no problem. . . as long as people are *not* using it to promote a social gospel. . ."?

Yep, Ivan, it does sound like an emergent church phrase. Basically experience, your own story, is the new emerging church theme. Ivan wanted a reference about the emergent church. Here is a good book on the topic:

Carlson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.


----------



## Sven (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks, Carol, for the editorial comment.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 30, 2009)

CNJ said:


> > Yup, Ivan, it does sound like an emergent church phrase. Basically experience, your own story, is the new emerging church theme.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jun 30, 2009)

The ones I know who use it are so anti-denominational that it is sickening to say the least. They are against anything which has to do with an organized church body and also push an anti-intellectual agenda. Now these are the ones I know who use the phrase. While I agree with it once we began to speak it became apparent there was more to "it" than just the phrase. One group does not believe in pastors nor even having a brick&mortar building. They meet in house churches and there is no one in charge. They minister to one another. It goes so far that they only believe in the "red" letters of the Bible, ie hyper-Dispensationalists and each person is required to get their own 12....actually they seem more like a cult.

The phrase is not bad in and of itself but with those I have heard it pushed it is just a battlecry so that everyone and no one is in charge of everyone and no one.


----------



## Sven (Jul 1, 2009)

Ivan said:


> CNJ said:
> 
> 
> > > Yup, Ivan, it does sound like an emergent church phrase. Basically experience, your own story, is the new emerging church theme.
> ...


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Jul 1, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> As long as people aren't using the phrase as a rant against church membership and ecclesiastical accountability, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's all in the motive behind it.







> Personally, I try to remember to say, "We left such and such at the church _building_" or "Such and such an event will take place at the church _building_" etc.



Good points, In my humble opinion. I try to remember to do likewise too.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:44:15 EST-----



In His Grip said:


> As long as people do not use that as an excuse to forsake the assembly of the church. I've heard people us it in that context before, and try to excuse themselves from worshipping as a congregation. Yet, we are to follow the pattern set forth by the early church to meet as a body to worship God and encourage one another!
> 
> "....and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." -Hebrews 10: 24-25



Agreed.


----------

