I guess I’m still not sure what I believe church is. Church is the body of believers? So what, then does “doing church” look like? I think I’d have a hard time calling passive participation like watching church on TV or listening to church”on the radio “doing church.” Granted, you can passively participate in the Sunday-morning at the building church as well, but at least there are opportunities to witness and perform the sacraments (baptism and communion), serve others, pray for and with others, worship together, etc.
With that said, I’d lean toward saying that small group is church, even if it lacks communion. But then I’ve always been in the low-church, so I probably don’t appreciate liturgy like others do.
My family does not make it to church every week — probably about twice a month, but both of us serve in some capacity. I help with set-up/tear down (we rent the space) and my wife does child care.
Captcha: crossman himself

Dr. McKnight,
Do you consider your postings as church? Do you think some of your readers here think your postings represent fellowship?
Basically I think that all who follow Jesus the Christ all around the world are His church. However, there is that warning in Matthew 7: “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive our demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (NIV)
Church and worship on the Sabbath is a high privilege for me. 11 am was just a convention for the farmers, but Sabbath worship with my church family I have made a highlight of my week.
At the end of our worship service our pastor says we are free to have fellowship one with another. And we do enjoy fellowship, in fact we had a covered dish luncheon at the church July 4th with rain outside, and then watched a DVD on America. Other Sundays we bring our lunches and have an afternoon class; currrently that class is on marriage.
However, as the sign of the times, there is a young man in our church who checks his iPhone for messages after the benediction. His fellowship is his iPhone! The church is accountability and as an older sister in the faith, my husband and I confronted/teased him about his fellowship habit.
The church is accountability for doctrine and practice as in the ECC tradition of “where is it written?” and “how goes it with your walk with the Lord?” We dare not rip up our historical roots in Scripture and well-written creeds that declare Scripture in favor of a Christianity that smacks of political correctness. What I used to do for God was often wood, hay and stubble; the church is for His glory and for His glory I am in/with/for church.
God is capable of drawing men and women to Himself without our PR campaigns for the church. He seems to be doing that in other nations more than in the USA these days.

American protestantism has lost all useful image of the church as the people of God. The starts with the leadership and extends all the way down to the occasional attender in the pew. (Or perhaps it starts in the pews and extends up into the leadership.) The only people who may retain a healthy view are, perhaps, children – who generally feel a real community and are not yet “set in their ways” or jockeying for position. Perhaps youth stay out for a time because of the difficulty of making the transition to the realities of adult behavior?
Jana Reiss had a thought-provoking post on her blog: Why the Mormon Church is True. Her point is not that the Mormon belief system is true (although she likely feels that it is) but that the church is a true church.

But in at least one way I am sure we Mormons get it right: I am forced, every week, to go to church with people I wouldn’t otherwise go out of my way to befriend. One of them is someone who drives me up a tree. And like it or not, that is the gospel.

No consumer driven choice, no “what’s best for me,” no finding people I’m comfortable with, no expectation by leadership that those with a different vision or preference can go along or go away. Both the leaders and the people are required to work it out in the trenches with all.
When decades of community can be wiped out by a new leader who decides “his church” is going in a different direction – when people shop around for the best experience, we have a problem.

I think at a minimum church needs to put you in a position where Matthew 18 type discipline is a potential possibility. You would probably also need to brush up against people like the elders and deacons that Paul gives qualifications for.
A word on the parachurch – the parachurch movement exists because the church has failed. It failed to reach the military, so the Navigators movement started; it failed to reach college campuses so Campus Crusade, Campus Outreach, etc. started. The parachurch movements I have been in contact with did have more influence on their current members than local churches because the local churches weren’t on campus being the church to local kids, they were sitting in their buildings waiting fir kids to find them; however, they always made efforts to funnel those kids back into churches while they were on campus and especially after. My campus ministry (parachurch) probably sent 20-30 people to seminary and around 15 are now full time ministers in the church and another 5 or 6 are parachurch ministers.

RJS,
Are you saying that if your church got taken over by a fundamentalist YEC pastor you would remain in attendance?

By the way – Lindsay’s book is quite interesting. And one of the things he did note was that many of the evangelical leaders he interviewed rarely go to church. There were a number of reasons as I recall, from the busy lifestyle with much travel and work, to a difficulty feeling at home in the church, to an annoyance with the amateurishness (not in music or in “show,” which are rather minor details, but in style of thinking and interacting with people).

Robin,
The whole idea of “taken over by” is part of the problem.
In some fashion we should have to work together and talk together. I am not saying that a strong parish model is the best route – only that what we have today often doesn’t work from either side. Read her post – it is thought provoking.

Carol, no I don’t consider this space church though fellowship occurs frequently. But church includes but is more than fellowship.
How’s this for a captcha? “intercommunal padlocks”

Then replace “taken over by” with “replaced by the diocese” My mom’s parish went from a Vatican 2 hating exclusivist to a universalist pushover – the transition was dramatic. Huge swings in leadership and doctrine happen in centralized, heirarchical churches as well as locally autonomous churches.
Consider the wide range of priests that could currently be provided by the Episcopal church to their local parishes, from liberals that support the ordination of practicing homosexuals and homosexual marriage to conservatives trying to join the African communion because they think the American church is apostate. Is it really your position that local parishioners should just stick around and suck it up no matter what extreme position gets sent to their local church.

Sorry if I come off as sharp RJS, it is just that I firmly believe people’s doctrine should line up with their church. I tend to be baptistic in belief, but I am a calvinist, so I will shop around for a calvinistic baptist church when I move to a new area and if I can’t find one then I’ll look for a calvinistic lutheran, presbyterian, etc. church, and I don’t feel bad for looking. We have finally arrived at a geographical location where we might stay for 20-50 years so we are taking the time to look for a church where we can see ourselves participating for the next 50 years. We aren’t just going to the African Methodist church because it is the closest to our house.

Robin, you’re getting a little aggressive. Taken over happens in low church settings because the pastor, or the pastor and his staff, are often pope-like in function (though not in name or ecclesiology). RJS’s comment was in the direction of “I go where I want and when I don’t like what’s there I go somewhere else” instead of learning to work within a community with other Christians in order to form a Church of genuinely different people but who are on the same page because of the gospel. That’s how I see her point.

Again, sorry if I come across as aggressive, I just like to see some consumerism in church selection. I don’t approve moving churches over the color of carpet or whether there is a dulcimer in the worship band, but I don’t fault anyone for moving if the individual’s, or the church’s doctrine changes substantially.

Robin,
When you move into a new area I tend to agree with you – look for the best fit. But what happens when the church changes, when the leadership changes? Should there be an expectation of constancy and community?
I contend that we have a problem because we have no real view of church as community from either side of the table. We don’t have to work together. The leadership feels free to take a “go along or go away” approach and the people feel free to go away for a better fit rather than compromise.
When the issues are truly fundamental (as in your example with your mother’s parish) we need to make a tough choice. But these are not the kinds of issues that are tearing up our church. Its the “little” things.

A couple thoughts: First, aren’t the mainline churches the ones that mainly do what the author calls for and yet are in decline? The decline isn’t necessarily a dealbreaker by itself, but it’s a factor for me that gives me pause.
Second, I tend to think that the answer for low church isn’t merely heading more toward high-church. I think they need to move in both directions: low (or radical) and high (or traditional) in a various ways. For example, I think parachurches and even AA have picked up on huge elements of what the Church is called to be and can be, but I also think that many low churches would do well to incorporate something like the BCP into their communal rhythms.
captcha: and dunked

I should say regarding high church “doing their version” of what the author recommends (the C’s).

How I see the problem is not on the taken over issue- that happens, people have trouble holding parrallel views. The tension within Christianity obviously has been a part of its fissiparous nature. A sign of life actually. Many people are popes at heart on some issue.
My problem is on the subject of going. I have come to believe this, in and of itself, causes a schizophrenic approach. As soon as you think you can go to church, you have created places within yourself where there isn’t church. And an insider/outsider attitude.
imonk(Michael Spencer) and so many others who have lived a barrenness, don’t wish for an end to evagelicalism. They don’t abandon the faith, the protestant principle.
So we flit from place to place. We find RC, EO, Mainline, house, and many other homes. We attended a Wesleyan “church” from January 2007 until January 2008( in an Air Force community that understands coming and going).
Their once was a time when people stayed and patriarchy reigned. This evolved to a more personal approach where your “inner witness” held sway. But it seems we have stretched beyond even this. The world we live in is so transitory, friends and community are for a season. It demands a matriarchal approach. Perhaps this is part of some returning to RC and EO, but for us it screams for new evangelical approaches.

As far as a “church” service goes, no one says it better than Webber in “The Divine Embrace”.

I see the high/low church as the continued fragmentation of christianity. The high church is worried about the existence (dare I say growth) of the low church. It suggests something is missing in high church practice or leadership. Low church can’t be dismissed since it’s growth is organic and self-motivated.
Isn’t the parachurch movement just a way for folks with similar features (college students) to self-select for membership?

We are all born into the church by the Spirit, baptised into the body. You can never leave even if you leave a building, it’s a state not an event.
the church is people.
all other structures, events, organisations, services, gatherings, serve and build up the church. The church remains a liquid entity, like a river. We as pastors or teachers etc can help to purify this force or we can pollute it. We can channel it to dry areas or we can freeze it.

Can someone help me understand the difference between “corporate” and “community” in his five c’s?

“the church is people.”
That’s nice. I would agree that even a regularly attended house church qualifies as “church.”
White might not agree.
I suspect his theme is more a criticism of fragmenting church membership. He seems concerned that without a physical (corporate) church, its routine membership (community), and discipline (creed) there can’t be a real Church.
This is a theme I’ve picked up on with numerous adherents to high church denominations such as Orthodox Presbyterians.

Chris,
No, I wouldn’t say that’s all parachurch is. They arise generally out of mission to a people that the Church has generally ignored or failed to notice or just haven’t gotten to yet. The one I work closely with is focused on the inner city youth of WPB, FL, and that was certainly the case for them.
Frankly, parachurches often do well what churches don’t, and sometimes, vice versa. In many ways the things that parachurches and some low churches do well are more central to my idea of church than, for example, right administration of “the sacraments.” But I don’t idealize parachurches or low churches by any means, either.

Chris,
Is the issue really one of fragmentation or one of commitment and unity?
“Low church can’t be dismissed since it’s growth is organic and self-motivated.”
Perhaps one could say that some forms of church (and I think the ‘low’/'high’ distinction is a red herring here) can’t be dismissed because in our transient and individualistic culture catering to individual preference and whim, creating homogeneous community, with a charismatic leader, will feed numerical growth.
Sometimes organic and self-motivated are euphemisms for factors that are not so benign.

“Sometimes organic and self-motivated are euphemisms for factors that are not so benign.”
I think we are talking clerical and orthodox types wanting to tap into the enthusiasm of these other movements and pull them back into a “correct” theology…a theology that includes regular membership, acknowledging church leadership, and accepting its creed and discipline.
Once again, I think that a house church with a small but regular membership with a connection to a larger organization is a legitimate expression of the Church. I don’t think you need a big brick building on the corner of Main and Broadwary are a requirement.

Chris,
I don’t know enough about White to know if you are right or not with respect to his motivation. And I agree that house church as you’ve described it is a legitimate expression of the Church. One person who used to comment here regularly described decades of commitment to a house church group – certainly a legitimate local expression of the church.
But you are missing my point, I think. I agree with White’s five c’s and would add a sixth – commitment. Commitment to the global church and commitment to a local expression of the church. If we lack commitment we lack any real semblance of a robust ecclesiology.

I want to thank Scot for his series of posts on my book. I have enjoyed his books, as well as his postings, for some time. It was an honor for him to lead a discussion on the ideas suggested in Christ Among the Dragons. I?ve learned a great deal as I?ve gone through the various reactions, and appreciate all who have engaged the various issues the book attempts to raise. I cannot help but hope that those of you who were intrigued by the conversation will give the book a full reading at some point, as many of your questions are, I believe, addressed in its pages. Also, you might enjoy my own blog at churchandculture.org. But shameless plugs aside, thanks to all of you for engaging this work and teaching me much in the process. And again, Scot, thanks for featuring the book and its ideas.

I think Cyprian had it right many, many years ago.

Yes, Dr. McKnight, the church is more than fellowship (see #2 above).
RJS, I like adding commitment to the list of five C’s. That responds to what McKnight wrote in the original post above: “. . . people judge their spiritual impulses without wisdom from clergy, little sense of limitations. Good example: rabid parachurch commitment where one’s faith community is the parachurch group instead of the local church.” Commitment for accountability to Scripture, to our mission (cause–sometimes parachurch), to the one holy, apostolic, catholic church with historical roots, to worship.
I am not sure what White means by corporate. Will have to read his book. Sometimes churches that are undenominational or nondenominational, act like a denomination when they send out ministers or form satellite churches.
Just like you can’t maintain a marriage with text messages or Skype, you can’t maintain church as a spectator with TV, Internet, Concerts, and Parachurch Ministries.

Following on Chris in thread about fragmentation/unity that was also addressed by RJS- to me it seems James Emory White’s motivation for a renewed call for unity is the uniqueness of the forces that challenge the church today. I believe it was Nouwen in an 80′s book on desert fathers that opened my eyes to its insidiousness. The secular threat today has invaded our homes and destroys even personal relationships.
I am trying to emphasize the dragon issue, because then you understand the call for unity in confronting it.
We live in times of disharmony. The breakdown of morals, group egoism, signs of decaying institutions, a hardness of heart. The enemies of the church are turning and attacking. Any harmony is not a natural one, but it must be created.
Perhaps White has an “Institutio” view of church. Perhaps fragmenting is cancerous rather than benign. But I rather think his view is in the line of 20th century ecumenical thought. The Christological, Soteriological, and Eccesiological views of those lines of thought are worth investigating.
Some feel this issue of ecumenism a positive force for reform, others feel it has many adverse affects. But I’m saying what drives it is the new nature of the forces aligning against the church.

Dr. White,
I am starting to follow your blog–thanks for putting it up here.
Two questions for you, Dr. White. 1) What do you mean by corporate? 2) Do you call for commitment?
Cordially,
Carol

I agree with this statement by RJS: “If we lack commitment we lack any real semblance of a robust ecclesiology.” I think that one of the factors in a weak ecclesiology is the casual way a lot of folks choose a church and view commitment. It is similar to marriage. If one is going to have a view of marriage that allows them to leave when things get tough or when they no longer feel “in love”, they will inevitably get a divorce because things do get tough and the feeling is not always there. If folks have a similar view of church, the outcome is pretty much the same.
On the other hand, folks with a robust ecclesiology may be as picky as they are in choosing a mate – which leaves some folks feeling that they do not want to get too involved in a church because they do not want to commit yet. It may also mean that some will remain “single” longer than they desire or expect if the options in their area are limited. I wonder if some of the prominent evangelical leaders mentioned in the book have such a robust view of ecclesiology that they have a hard time finding a church they feel they can, in good conscience, commit to.
Many folks aren’t in a position to make a huge commitment to a church. Consider college students – they are in a ‘dating’ stage of life. They’re re-evaluating their beliefs and values, uncovering their identity, etc. It would be great if they could find a church first semester of their freshmen year and be involved throughout college, but most hop around for quite a while and aren’t as involved in church as they are their campus ministry (which may be less specific in doctrine and more community oriented). Maybe their lack of involvement in church has less to do with their immaturity and more to do with their search for identity and knowledge that they aren’t ready to commit to something when they might change their minds.
Obviously the metaphor can be taken too far and I do not intend to do that. But I personally have a tough time with this one. I empathize with the evangelical leaders White mentions, as well as parachurch organizations who tend to minister to those who are ready for spiritual community but not ready to commit to a church with all the marvelous things that make ecclesiology “robust”.

At least their was not anything like that on the 4th of July!

I was tracking with this post until I got to “clergy/laity distinction is blurred” being presented as a Bad Thing.
Of course there are different roles in the Body of Christ, and some are called to leadership, to shepherding flocks, and/or to teaching. I’m not arguing against professional clergy or against the importance of listening to wise leaders and teachers (some of whom may be clergy). But the Reformation concept of “priesthood of all believers” is important, and elevating some parts of the body above others in importance is a problem (see I Cor. 12).
Having too wide a distinction between clergy and laity creates a situation where the attitude (among both laity and clergy) is that the real “ministry” is done by the professionals, and the laity are passive consumers of the services dispensed by the religious professionals. The local church where I am a member (in the PCUSA) is emerging from a period of top-down control and over-dependence on professional staff and I think/hope has realized the ways in which that was unhealthy.
Several comments have rightly decried the situation where people approach their churches as consumers evaluating a product rather than as a community to which they are a committed part. I think this problem is exacerbated where there is a big gulf between the religious professionals at the top and the rest of us second-class sheep. So I’m all for “blurring” the clergy/laity distinction if that means that both clergy and laity see themselves and each other as important parts of an interdependent body of ministers.

To Carol (#30). As for commitment, if I understand the idea correctly, then I think that would be assumed (or at least, should be). So yes, I would agree.
As for my sense of ‘corporate,” I am speaking about certain organizational dynamics that seem to not only be assumed in the New Testament, but prescribed. For example, the Bible speaks of defined organizational roles, such as pastors/elders/bishops (I would argue that the three “roles” are used interchangeably and synonymously in the New Testament) and deacons, as well as corporate roles related to spiritual gifts such as teachers, administers, and, of course, leaders (Rom. 12; I Cor. 12; Eph. 4; I Pet. 4). These corporate dynamics allowed money to flow from one group to another (II Corinthians 8); decisions to be made by leaders as to doctrine and practice (Acts 15); and the setting apart of some individuals for appointed tasks, mission and church plants (Acts 13). So while there is great freedom in terms of ecclesial structure, to be sure, there are elements of ecclesial structure that seem to be foundational to a working definition of “church.”
I’m glad you are enjoying the blog!

“The church is people.” Well, yes. Of course. The problem is that it is everywhere described in the NT as the one people of God drawn from the nations and reshaped into something else. It’s all nations grafted into the tree of Israel (which had been reduced to the faithful man, Jesus of Nazareth). It’s a remnant that is growing.
Now compare that to the reality today. In what possible sense is there one people being shaped together into renewed human beings and being healed together? Instead, there are mostly groups of largely like-minded (and often largely racially and ethnically homogeneous) groups of people who maintain some sort of loose voluntary association (as long as they don’t get too offended).
There’s never been a perfect church, since we as human beings are what we are. But for most of Christian history, the Church was the place that gathered all together who believed. The rich and the poor. The free and the slave. Different cultures. Different nations. Different races. We had to learn to be one people despite sometimes vast differences. That almost doesn’t exist today.
Yes, sometimes a heretical bishop would be placed over a place. And there are instances when the people refused to enter the church and met, instead, in the fields until that bishop (or priest) was removed. But they did not have the concept that there could be a valid, second and competing church in that place. We have completely lost that sense. We no longer even try to be one.
Robin, I found your question to RJS interesting. I happen to have come to Christian faith in a church with a YEC pastor (and pre-mill dispensationalist and a host of other things). God hasn’t given up and stopped trying to form a people. And I think in my case, I had to be shown that love could be present — that He could be present — even in what I considered the “worst” part of Christianity before I could truly be open to the idea of being Christian. (Long story in there.) I would hardly call us enthusiastic members, but where else would we go? For different reasons, neither my wife nor I have strong roots in any Christian tradition. And in the chaos that forms the current Christian landscape, why should we think it’s “better” anywhere else? At least we have some connections where we are. And personally, I’m not looking for people who agree with me or are like me. I don’t need a “church” for that. Moreover, what benefit is there in that?
Personally, I don’t think there’s any way that any meaningful life of church can be restored unless people begin again to believe that the crunchy reality of a physical church actually matters. As long as people believe there’s no problem with Christians in the same geographical location self-segregating into comfortable little groups, then there is no church in that place in any way that actually matters.

Committment is very tricky for most of the rising generations. If you escaped an insano family through the means of gaining an education, and then you go on to join a church and participate with people that resemble sometimes in graphic detail the abusive family of origin, you find your self thinking–”Am I on a rinse and repeat psycho treadmill here?” Think about, for instance lets take the overly judgemental church lady–if you are a young lady that had an overbearing mother, then voila, church=instant new family with a bizillion more overbearing women. If you had a controlling father, then in walks Pastor Know-It-All to fill that needed void. Now enters the “accountability” of the church, and you have exactly what has crippled the majority from differentiating from their families of origin in the first place–you have an intantaneous new form of family that can be more harmful than the first. I truely think this is why people leave the church, don’t join one, or keep their distance. Christ doesn’t make people not crazy. In fact, the distortion of Christ makes them worse.

Chad Holtz (#27),
I’ve read some of Cyprian and I waver on this – he clearly had much right, but he also defends the power and dignity of the church elite far too aggressively. At times he comes across as the autocratic father in a dysfunctional family and at other times as a servant leader.
His quote is dead on – but his application sometimes a problem.

Scott (35),
This idea of “sticking with the church” no matter how bad it gets is what I find insidious. The problem was never just sometimes a heretical bishop would be placed over a place.” The problem was, sometimes the entire church heirarchy would be dedicated to executing people for translating the bible into the vernacular, or, the entire church heirarchy would dedicate itself to executing non-priests for reading the word of God. It wasn’t just a benign, “make due under some bad theology” it was “bow down before the church heirarchy in all facets of belief or face execution” and it didn’t really stop when the Catholic church lost power in realms. The church of England was every bit as brutal as the Catholic Church was.
I will take self-segregating communities with little institutional authority over state sponsored churches that routinely torture and kill true believers any day – because that is the reality of history. That is what happens when we are required to give absolute allegiance to an institution.

“We have been born again into the most tragically dysfunctional family in the world. Some of us are starving to death, while others of us are building enormous church buildings. That should break our hearts.”
Shane Claibourne
I know the social, emotional, psychological, and cultural issues that propel this dichotomy, but man, what are we committing our selves to when we commit to an institution really? And yes, committment is a powerful force for good when we see how the institutions of the church have generated much of the relief of poverty that we see, but can’t we wake up and arise. Maybe if this happened, we wouldn’t have a commitment problem?

“In the USA a great example of this is the democratization of the Church: clergy/laity distinction is blurred, people judge their spiritual impulses without wisdom from clergy, little sense of limitations. Good example: rabid parachurch commitment where one’s faith community is the parachurch group instead of the local church.”
Great observation. While not all that well read on this issue, I tend to see such movements as emerging as a push back against the democratized forms and hierarchical structure of church today. But I see the movement for the small group (which resembles the parachurch) or coffee house forms as likewise missing the mark. Going back to the Greek, ekklesia was I understand essentially a gathering of certain people (called out) to determine how best to order their common lives (I think the Acts 19:32 reference fits here), and Jesus, and more so Paul, took this word up and offered up the church, as an assembly of called out people who would discern how best to order their common lives, but with certain key features, such as apostolic teaching (discipleship – Yoder and Bonhoeffer speak to this well I think) which falls into what I read as White’s reference to corporate, such as community fellowship at times other than the corporate gathering for teaching/worship, to more directly discern how best to order their common lives (nuancing that word through the Acts 2:42-47 passage). So in this sense the 5 activities identified in the opening post are not adequate as church.

AHH 33
Yes.
The lack of ecclesiology among evangelicals is a huge problem. Some do end up heading for Rome or Canterbury (or, what, Constantinople?) and good for them. But you can also head in the other direction, towards Yoder and the hermeneutics of peoplehood. This actually requires a much more robust ecclesiology than most of evangelicalism, though functionally it may look the same, in terms of church governance.
The priesthood of all believers doesn’t mean there are no priests, but that we are all each other’s priests.

“What has happended?”
I appreciate the comments that put some of the responsibility on leadership at churches.
If we take White’s five C’s that characterize the church, how well is leadership doing?
Community: Do churches really describe what that means?
Confession/creed: Do churches really emphasize this? Many non-denoms hardly mention it, while many denominational churches hardly enforce it.
Corporate: Again, what does that mean? For seeker churches, is that the seeker service, or is that the special, periodic sacramental services?
Celebration: do people really see it that way?
Cause (mission): Is that clearly defined? Is it some vague statement that could mean countless things, and take the church in countless directions (at the whim of the leadership)?
RJS wants to add Commitment. But do people know what they are supposed to commit to? Do churches have a good track record of holding up their side of the bargain?
So I will add Communication. Do churches clearly and regularly communicate these aspects of church?

James Emery White-
I would refer you to von campenhausen’s “ecclesiastical authority and spiritual power in the church of the first three centuries” – hendricksen press.
his study might have some bearing on your thoughts about “corporate.”

“I do tell you that in what place soever, by what means soever-whether by preaching the Gospel by a true Minister, by a false Minister or by no Minister-two or three faithful people do arise, separating themselves from the world into the fellowship of the Gospel and covenant of Abraham, they are a Church, truly gathered, though never so weak.” John Robinson to JamesI in 1606.
So you can blame the Reformation for what has happened. But who can ask for more of a promise than “I am there”. I don’t think it is the Reformation on steroids that has happened. And our current problems aren’t from lack of commitment. Yes many don’t attend. The polls say evangelicals are OK attendance wise. Either way, that isn’t what is promised or what Christian’s want. I like old time Methodist class meetings, because they are experimental(experiential). It is that recreation that stimulates love of God, others, and even His mission in me.

To James White (#34),
Appreciate your work and your reflections here. I think loyalty and commitment in our kind of society are very hard (e.g. witness even among Christian people the prevalence of divorce).It seems clear in both Jesus’ intention (choosing of the twelve – pointing to the new people of God) and the result of his work in the formation of the church (Pentecost and beyond) – forming a community of people – is intrinsic to what God is about.
We can try to make the best of things in our situation, there are various strengths in the different groups, if we are open in Christian love to these others, that can be received as gifts. But fragmentation is serious weakness and deeply contrary in witness to reconciliation in Christ (the question from one person I know is, How will people hear the gospel, how can it be real, if it is not reflected in some measure in the church?). Among evangelicals in particular there is much of “going our own way” (instead of the way of Christ) that isolates us from other Christians. Great need of the reconciliation and unity that Jesus came to make possible. There are strong Christian relations in the NT church that make for shared life, support/accountability, and mission.